Oral
Answers to
Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Government Policies: Implications for Scottish Economy

Stephen Kerr: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implications of the Government’s policies for the Scottish economy.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has regular discussions with fellow Cabinet Ministers regarding all matters that are of importance to Scotland.

Stephen Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that direct engagement by UK Government Departments, such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury, in growth deals such as the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal is the best way to ensure that all economic objectives are met?

Mel Stride: May I reassure my hon. Friend that discussions are held right across Whitehall Departments, including those to which he refers, to ensure that the city deal projects, including the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city deal, are as successful as possible? I also recognise the extraordinary amount of work, effort and drive that he has personally put into helping ensure that they are a success.

Ian Murray: The Secretary of State and I had a conversation in the Tea Room on Monday, but given that he is not answering this question I will have to ask about something else. Brexit is obviously the biggest issue with regard to the impact on the Scottish economy, so can the Financial Secretary tell us how much the Scottish economy will shrink by if the Prime Minister’s deal is passed in this House?

Mel Stride: The cross-Government analysis that we have already come forward with shows, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that, on the basis that we are leaving the European Union, by far the best outcome is to support the Prime Minister’s deal.

Alan Brown: Under the Conservative Government, the Scottish budget has been cut by £2.6 billion in real terms over 10 years, and yet the confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist party means that the Barnett formula has been broken to the tune of £3.4 billion. When is Scotland going to get that money?

Mel Stride: The Barnett formula has been honoured. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are Barnett consequentials where moneys are allocated to devolved matters within England. That is not the case in the recent additional amounts to support the Northern Ireland budget. It is also the case that in the recent autumn Budget the Chancellor announced changes that resulted in an additional £950 million for the Scottish Government.

Alistair Carmichael: The economy of rural Scotland would suffer serious damage if the Government’s proposals for tariffs on foodstuff were ever to be implemented. The National Farmers Union of Scotland has called for that to be rethought. Are the Government listening to it?

Mel Stride: The Government are most certainly listening to all those who have concerns about the introduction of tariffs where they are not in existence, as is currently the case between ourselves and the EU27. Once again, that is why the deal that is before the House, which has been negotiated with the European Union, is so important—because that would mean that we would not run into those particular difficulties.

Lesley Laird: This question is specifically to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has three responsibilities: strengthening and sustaining the Union; acting as Scotland’s voice in Whitehall; and championing the UK Government in Scotland. Which one does he think he is doing best, and why?

Mel Stride: I have no hesitation in answering on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, bound as I am to do so, given that I started this series of questions and convention dictates that I have to reply on his behalf. Those are all absolute priorities for my right hon. Friend, and he will continue to speak up for the people of Scotland.

Lesley Laird: I have to express the Opposition’s disappointment that the Secretary of State for Scotland is repeatedly not standing up and being accountable. Once again, this question is directly to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it is he who holds the office, not the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to him.
I am afraid that I have to tell the Secretary of State that I disagree with the previous response. His record is abysmal. He has failed on the stronger towns fund; failed on Brexit funding for Scotland’s businesses; failed to stand up for Scotland’s shipbuilding communities through his non-action on the fleet solid support ships contract; and failed to respect the devolution settlement. He has even failed to follow through on his own resignation threats. Secretary of State, how bad does it need to get for the people of Scotland under this Tory Government before you do the right thing and actually resign?

Mel Stride: I categorically do not accept the points the hon. Lady makes. My right hon. Friend does indeed stand up for Scotland, which is partly why—[Interruption.] The reason why he is not at the Dispatch Box, as the hon. Lady well knows, is to do with the way in which the conventions of the House operate in respect of the answering of questions. She knows that and it is a little unfair of her, if I may say, Mr Speaker, to try to make political capital out of that particular procedural element. My right hon. Friend has stood up for Scotland to the extent that there was £950 million additional budget for Scotland as a consequence of the last autumn Budget, with £1.3 billion going into city growth deals across Scotland. That is to support Scotland, the economy and the Scottish people.

Leaving the EU: Public Services

Jo Swinson: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on the potential effect on public services in Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

David Mundell: I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The best way to ensure that public services in Scotland and across the rest of the UK are protected is to ensure that we leave the EU with a deal.

Jo Swinson: May I share with the Secretary of State an email from one of my constituents, Ian? He says:
“As a doctor, I have already seen the adverse impact of Brexit on the NHS. Staff shortages are already hurting us…We cannot have Brexit and give the NHS resources it so badly needs. I know which people in our local community would prefer.”
Which does the Secretary of State think the people of Scotland would prefer: a decently funded NHS or Brexit?

David Mundell: I think everybody in Scotland wants to see a decently funded and supported NHS. I disagree with the hon. Lady on Brexit—her position is well known. If we want to encourage doctors like Ian to come to Scotland, what we should not be doing is taxing them £1,900 more than they would pay in the rest of the UK.

Tom Pursglove: Is it not the case that what we have just heard is a complete scare story? The Government are making millions more extra available for the health service and all EU nationals who are currently here are welcome to stay. Surely, in the future, we will be able to have an immigration system that treats people equally regardless of where they come from in the world?

David Mundell: I agree with the points my hon. Friend makes. In the future, we have to make Scotland an attractive place to come to. If we want doctors and senior health service professionals to come to Scotland, we should not be taxing them significantly more than they would be paying in other parts of the UK.

Marion Fellows: The number of EU nurses applying to work in the UK has fallen by 87%, and more than 7,000 nurses and midwives from the European economic area have left  the UK since the EU referendum. Can the Secretary of State say, with any honesty, that his Government’s pursuit of Brexit, and their hostile immigration policy, has not seriously harmed the NHS?

David Mundell: I could absolutely say that, because the Government are committed, as they have demonstrated across the UK for which they are responsible, to the additional funding of the NHS. We have set out an immigration White Paper, a route for engagement, to ensure that going forward we have EU and other citizens in our country to support the NHS and other services.

Paul Sweeney: It is nice to get a chance to actually shadow the Secretary of State, instead of myriad other Departments that turn up from week to week, particularly as his own Government analysis shows that their plan for Brexit will result in a 4% drop in gross domestic product. If his party’s track record tells us anything, it will choose to impose austerity and poverty pay on public services and workers to make up for that decline. One of the worst consequences of austerity is rising food insecurity, resulting in food bank use rising faster in Scotland than across the rest of the UK. Given the pressure that the failed austerity agenda is putting on our public services, will the Secretary of State say how many food banks are currently operational in Scotland and does he predict that the number will go up or down under the current policies of this Government?

David Mundell: I thought the hon. Gentleman might have begun with an apology for his shameful remarks, when he said that people who did not agree with him in the Labour party leaving was “necessary cleansing”. I do not know if Labour Members are aware of those comments, but I believe that they are truly shameful. Of course, in relation to food banks, everybody regrets the need that people have in emergency situations to use food banks, but we are clear that the support that we are providing to people as we leave the EU will be sufficient to meet their needs.

Leaving the EU: Discussions with Scottish Government

Pete Wishart: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the UK leaving the EU.

Peter Grant: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the UK leaving the EU.

Kirsty Blackman: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the UK leaving the EU.

Philippa Whitford: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the UK leaving the EU.

Patrick Grady: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the UK leaving the EU.

Drew Hendry: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the UK leaving the EU.

David Mundell: I recently chaired the joint Scottish Business Growth Group and regularly meet the Scottish Government in a number of other forums, including the Joint Ministerial Committee, to discuss a range of matters related to EU exit.

Pete Wishart: I am sure that the Scottish people will be comforted by that fact. I am pretty certain that the Secretary of State has been able to have a look at the petition to revoke article 50. If he has not, I can tell him that nearly 10% of his constituents have now signed it. The Scottish people just want this chaotic Tory Brexit gone, but with the UK options quickly diminishing for Scotland to remain, surely he agrees that at some point, the Scottish people will have to decide whether they want to go down with this disastrous, isolating, ugly Brexit Britain or whether they should determine their own way in Europe as an independent nation.

David Mundell: I became aware that the hon. Gentleman did not support the First Minister’s policy of a people’s vote when I did not see any pictures of him cuddling Alastair Campbell at the weekend. At least the hon. Gentleman is honest—he wants to revoke article 50. I do not agree with him. That would not implement the outcome of the referendum. The best way for Scotland and the UK to proceed is to leave the EU with the Prime Minister’s deal.

Peter Grant: We know that the Prime Minister, yet again, has had private discussions with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, who is not a Member of this House and does not represent any Government. She represents only a minority view within one nation of these islands. When did the Prime Minister last speak to the First Ministers of Scotland or Wales? What has the Secretary of State done to ensure that such important discussions take place between now and 12 April?

David Mundell: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the First Minister of Scotland was invited to join a Cabinet committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, to discuss Brexit preparedness, as was the First Minister of Wales. Surprisingly, the First Minister of Wales has attended and the First Minister of Scotland never has.

Kirsty Blackman: I am surprised to hear the Secretary of State suggest that the best future for the people of Scotland is to leave the EU, because the UK Government’s modelling shows that any Brexit will mean that the people of Scotland are worse off as a result. Will he now do his job, stand up for the people of Scotland and vote against any Brexit?

David Mundell: I am presuming that the hon. Lady is part of the “Remain elite” that Alex Neil MSP and Jim Sillars referred to in their letter to the Scottish Daily Mail, when they encouraged all Scottish National party MPs in this House to back the Prime Minister’s deal as the best way forward for Scotland. They should listen to them.

Philippa Whitford: Almost all future population growth in Scotland is predicted to come from inward migration, so a welcoming immigration policy and freedom  of movement is critical for our public services and our rural communities. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary about meeting Scotland’s needs or devolving the power so that we can do it ourselves?

David Mundell: I was going to answer that I had regularly raised the issue at Cabinet, until the hon. Lady raised the last bit about devolving powers. I have been very clear at this Dispatch Box that the Government, in line with the Smith commission, does not support the devolving of immigration.

Patrick Grady: Sixty-two per cent. of people in Scotland voted to remain, so that is an elite that I am pretty happy to be part of. Some 7,500 of his constituents and 14,500 of mine have signed the petition to revoke article 50. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be the Secretary of State for Scotland and Scotland is against Brexit, so when is he going to do his job, stand up for Scotland and stand up to the Prime Minister, and stop Scotland being taken out of the European Union against its will?

David Mundell: Clearly the hon. Gentleman’s view is not shared by Alex Neil MSP and former deputy leader of the SNP, Jim Sillars, who I know commands great respect in Glasgow. The issue at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s question is an unwillingness to accept the outcome of the 2014 referendum. We had a United Kingdom referendum, and the United Kingdom as a whole voted to leave the EU.

Drew Hendry: Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) not only for threatening to resign over this Government’s ruinous Brexit policy, but for actually having the courage, honour and conviction to follow through, or is that an alien concept to this Secretary of State?

David Mundell: As we see repeatedly from SNP Members, they want a chaotic Brexit—and the chaos and disruption that no deal or no agreement would bring—because they believe that chaos and disruption are the best ways to advance their independence referendum agenda.

Douglas Ross: I am aware that the UK Government have provided the Scottish Government with millions of pounds for Brexit preparations. In the rest of the UK, that money has gone to local authorities. Can the Secretary of State tell me how much of that funding the SNP Scottish Government have given to Moray Council or any other council in Scotland?

David Mundell: I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend and his wife Krystle on the birth of their son, Alistair, and on using the proxy voting system to reflect his views throughout his paternity leave.
The House might not be aware but the UK Government have provided nearly £100 million to the Scottish Government for Brexit preparations, but, at the weekend, the First Minister of Scotland was unable to identify a single penny that had been paid directly to Scottish local authorities.

Martin Whitfield: Could the Secretary of State assist the people of Scotland by indicating how he intends to vote this afternoon?

David Mundell: I am awaiting your decision, Mr Speaker, on which amendments will be selected this afternoon.

Bob Blackman: From my right hon. Friend’s discussions with the Scottish Government, can he tell us what preparations they have made for a smooth exit from the EU and to take advantage of the benefits that will apply to Scotland?

David Mundell: I would commend the Scottish Government for their actions in relation to preparing for a no-deal outcome in the imminent future—that these preparations were being made was acknowledged by Mike Russell, their own Minister, in a TV interview at the weekend. The Governments are capable of working on that basis. That said, in response to the point of my hon. Friend’s question, no, the Scottish Government have not embraced Brexit or the opportunities it could bring to Scotland.

Tommy Sheppard: Twice the elected representatives of the British people have rejected the Government’s withdrawal agreement, and today we move on to consider alternatives. I know that the Secretary of State is conflicted on this matter, but I would like to give him an opportunity to be clear with the people of Scotland. Will he still rule out a no-deal Brexit, and if the only way to achieve that is by revoking article 50, will he support that?

David Mundell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I do not support a no-deal Brexit, but I do not support revoking article 50 either.

Tommy Sheppard: We can only interpret that to mean that there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State for Scotland would consent to a no-deal Brexit. In doing so, he stands against the views of the national Parliament of Scotland, of Scottish civil society and of the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people. Is it not time now to rename his post “Secretary of State against Scotland”?

David Mundell: I am sure that that line sounded better when the hon. Gentleman practised it in front of the mirror. He clearly misconstrued my response. The House has made very clear that it will not accept a no-deal Brexit, but we are committed to ensuring that we deliver on the referendum result. That means leaving with a deal, and that is why I continue to support the Prime Minister’s deal.

Borderlands Growth Deal

John Lamont: What steps he is taking to deliver the borderlands growth deal.

Mel Stride: In his spring statement, the Chancellor announced the provision of up to £260 million for the borderlands growth deal, which will take the total investment to £345 million.

John Lamont: Extending the borders railway to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle would bring economic prosperity and jobs to the Scottish borders and the wider borderlands area. Will the Minister join me in asking for some of that £260 million to be spent on a feasibility study?

Mel Stride: I can certainly confirm that the Department for Transport will be considering a feasibility study on the extension of the borders railway.

Hugh Gaffney: Has the Minister looked at anything to do with local transport in Scotland? Has he looked at the shambles of ScotRail, and the shambles of local communities that have been left isolated?

Mel Stride: We are totally committed to supporting infrastructure in Scotland. That is why we have announced £1.3 billion to support eight city growth deals that will promote economic growth, prosperity and jobs in Scotland.

Luke Graham: Perth city centre is just outside my constituency, but it is nevertheless a cultural and commercial hub for many of my constituents. Is my right hon. Friend considering further funding applications for the city centre and the rural areas of Perth and Kinross?

Mel Stride: Regeneration is of course a devolved matter, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will be supporting Perth via a £150 million commitment to the Tay cities deal.

Elite-level Professional Tennis

Toby Perkins: What information his Department holds on the amount of elite-level professional tennis that will be played in Scotland in 2019.

David Mundell: I know that you, Mr Speaker, take a particular interest in this question.
Although my office does not routinely hold information on this matter, I acknowledge the great opportunity to build on the continuing legacy of Andy and Jamie Murray to develop tennis throughout Scotland.

Toby Perkins: If Scottish Office Ministers invested in access to the internet, they would discover that there are no elite-level events in Scotland, which is why many people feel that the Lawn Tennis Association is failing to take the opportunity to build on the legacy of Andy Murray’s success. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of the LTA and the Scottish Government to see what more can be done to ensure that this huge opportunity is not missed once and for all?

David Mundell: I should be happy to give that undertaking. Perhaps you will join us, Mr Speaker, given your passion for tennis and your attendance at major events in Scotland.

John Bercow: I entirely agree with the Secretary of State. We all commend the heroic successes of Andy and Jamie Murray and want to build on them this year  and beyond. I think that we should also acknowledge and salute the extraordinary efforts of Judy Murray, one of the greatest women in the world of tennis.

Paul Masterton: Of course Scotland’s reputation in elite tennis extends beyond the Murray brothers to the likes of Gordon Reid, Jonny O’Mara and the late and much missed Elena Baltacha. Will my right hon. Friend join me in calling on the Lawn Tennis Association to provide the money that will enable Tennis Scotland to take advantage of this golden opportunity to ensure that children, no matter where they live in Scotland, can take part in and enjoy the benefits of tennis?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will do that. Perhaps he would like to join me, along with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) and you, Mr Speaker, at the meeting with the LTA and other interested parties.

Spring Statement: Block Grant

John Stevenson: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect of the spring statement on the Scottish Government’s block grant.

Mel Stride: The spring statement builds on the autumn budget, which resulted in an extra £950 million for the Scottish budget, and also at the spring statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a further £260 million commitment to the borderlands growth deal.

John Stevenson: Scotland clearly receives a very fair share of funding, but the Scottish Government have decided to increase taxes. Does the Minister agree that becoming the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom risks undermining Scotland, particularly through investment and in its wider economy?

Mel Stride: Substantial tax powers have been devolved to the Scottish Government, including those relating to the rates of income tax, but the UK Government are committed to bringing taxation down, first and foremost by increasing the personal allowance to £12,500 one year earlier than our manifesto commitment and reducing tax in total for over 32 million people throughout the UK.

John Bercow: I hope colleagues across the House will want to join me in extending a warm welcome today to the United States Ambassador to the Court of St James’s, Woody Johnson. Woody, welcome, it is a pleasure to have you here.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stewart Hosie: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 27 March.

Theresa May: Mr Speaker, I join you in welcoming the United States ambassador to see our deliberations today in Prime Minister’s questions.
I recently announced at Prime Minister’s questions that I would be chairing a serious violence summit, and I can inform the House that this will take place next Monday. The summit will bring together Ministers, community leaders, agencies and experts to explore what more we can do as a whole society to tackle the root causes of serious violence, as well as intervening with those most at risk. Following the initial summit, Cabinet Ministers will be hosting a series of roundtable discussions with national leaders and those on the frontline. This will complement the recent announcement of a £100 million violence reduction fund targeted at hotspot areas, along with the £200 million youth endowment fund being established this week.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Stewart Hosie: I wish the Prime Minister well with the serious violence discussions she is having. However, Brexit is already costing the UK around £1 billion a week in lost growth, and we know that 80%-plus of the public are unhappy with the way in which this has been handled. This is not the fault of Guy Verhofstadt, Michel Barnier, Donald Tusk or any MP in this House voting according to their conscience; that fault lies with the Prime Minister, who is the architect of the withdrawal deal. So can she finally concede to the House that she is liable, responsible, culpable for the chaos that is the Brexit debacle and say when she will be resigning?

Theresa May: The Brexit deal delivers on the result of the referendum. The hon. Gentleman has a different view from me: I know he does not want to deliver on the result of the referendum. He wants to try and keep the United Kingdom in the European Union; 17.4 million people voted to take us out of the European Union and that is what we are going to do.

Andrew Bridgen: North West Leicestershire voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union and for the past two years the Prime Minister has told my constituents on over 100 occasions that we will be leaving on 29 March 2019 with or without a withdrawal agreement. At the last minute, she begs our EU masters for an extension to article 50, delaying our departure. Does my right hon. Friend realise that the good people of North West Leicestershire will forgive her for this? They are good people, but they are not stupid people, and they will never trust the Prime Minister again.

Theresa May: I hope the message my hon. Friend takes back to his constituents is a very simple one: we can indeed guarantee delivering on Brexit; we can guarantee delivering on Brexit if this week he and others in this House support the deal.

Jeremy Corbyn: This chaotic and incompetent Government have driven our country into chaos. We know the scale of the crisis when the TUC and the CBI are united in writing to the Prime Minister saying:
“A Plan B must be found—one that protects workers, the economy and an open Irish border”.
My question on Monday went unanswered, so will the Prime Minister now say what is her plan B?

Theresa May: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are continuing to work to ensure that we can deliver Brexit for the British people and guarantee that we deliver Brexit for the British people. We have a deal that cancels our EU membership fee, stops the EU making our laws, gives us our own immigration policy, ends the common agricultural policy for good and ends the common fisheries policy for good. Other options do not do that. Other options would lead to delay and uncertainty, and risk never delivering Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn: The only problem with the Prime Minister’s answer is that her deal has been twice defeated in this House, in one case by the largest ever majority by which a Government have lost a vote in our recorded parliamentary history. Reports today suggest that a former Conservative Prime Minister is telling Conservative MPs that pursuing a customs union with the EU is the best way to get Brexit over the line. Does she agree with him, and will she be supporting any motions for a customs union this afternoon?

Theresa May: The Government’s deal that we have negotiated with the European Union delivers the benefits of a customs union, while enabling us to have an independent free trade policy and to negotiate free trade agreements in our interests and not rely on Brussels to negotiate them for us. The right hon. Gentleman used to stand up for an independent trade policy; now he wants to have a customs union and to throw away the idea of an independent trade policy and leave Brussels negotiating for us. We want to negotiate our trade in our interests and the interests of people across this country.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that our policy is for a customs union to protect jobs and society. She will also know that the TUC and the CBI have called for a customs union as part of a deal. In fact, the letter they wrote to all MPs yesterday said that
“a deal that delivers a customs union and strong alignment with the UK and the EU rules is the preferred outcome for the business community”.
It is a bit strange when a Conservative Prime Minister says she does not want what the business community wants. These are indeed strange times. Can she say why she will not include a customs union in the options that will be discussed today?

Theresa May: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he does not just read the question that he had thought of previously but listens to the answer that I gave to his previous question? I will repeat it. He stood on a platform to enable us to do independent trade deals and have an independent trade policy and to deliver Brexit. His policy on a customs union breaks the first promise. He has never explained why he wants to abandon an independent trade policy, and his policy on a second referendum breaks his second promise. Whatever happened to straight-talking honest politics?

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister does not seem to realise that she does not have a deal that has been supported by this House. Our proposals for a customs union give us alignment on workers’ rights, consumer standards and environmental protections; they do not begin with a race to the bottom, which is what she  and many of her Front Benchers actually want. Earlier this week, the Business Minister resigned from the Government saying that the Government’s approach to Brexit was
“playing roulette with the lives and livelihoods of the vast majority of people in this country”.
Why is she prepared to carry on risking jobs and industry in another attempt to yet again run down the clock and try to blackmail the MPs behind her into supporting a deal that has already been twice rejected?

Theresa May: We have been negotiating to protect jobs. What the right hon. Gentleman says about a race to the bottom is wrong, as he well knows. We have been working across this House and it is absolutely clear in the political declaration that we agree to not falling back on workers’ rights. Also, we are Government who have enhanced workers’ rights—[Interruption.] This is the problem. The Labour party can never stand it when they are told that Conservatives have stood up for workers, but that is what the Conservative party does. We have enhanced workers’ rights. We stand up for workers with our tax cuts and our national minimum wage and with higher employment.

Jeremy Corbyn: In answer to a straight question to the Prime Minister, she was unable to guarantee what is called dynamic alignment with European standards. She knows full well that Labour’s proposals are to use EU standards as a baseline from which we would improve them, including giving workers full rights at work from day one of their employment, ending zero-hours contracts and many other things.
In the former Business Minister’s resignation letter, he also said to the Prime Minister that he hoped that she would
“now act in the national interest and enable Parliament this week to find a consensus… negotiating position”.
If today or on Monday a consensus alternative plan emerges across the House, will the Prime Minister accept that decision of the House and accept it as the basis for the UK’s negotiating position with the EU henceforth?

Theresa May: The objective that we should all have is being able to guarantee delivering Brexit to the British people. The right hon. Gentleman stands there and raises workers’ rights. We have been very clear about non-regression on workers’ rights and environmental standards—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is in black and white in the political declaration that has been agreed. He ends his question—[Interruption.] The shadow International Trade Secretary is shouting from a sedentary position about listening to Parliament. What we are going to do on workers’ right is say that, no, we will not simply automatically accept what the European Union does; we will listen to Parliament and give Parliament a say in that. I thought the Leader of the Opposition wanted Parliament to have a say in these things.

Jeremy Corbyn: That sounds awfully like a recipe for regression away from those standards and for damaging workers’ rights.
After the two largest defeats in parliamentary history, surely the Prime Minister should be listening to Parliament. She did not answer my question about whether an agreement reached in this House would become the Government’s negotiating position. I think that the House and, perhaps more importantly, the whole country deserves to know the answer to that question.
This country is on hold while the Government are in complete paralysis. The vital issues facing our country, from the devastation of public services to homelessness and knife crime, have been neglected. The Prime Minister is failing to deliver Brexit because she cannot build a consensus and is unable to compromise and reunite the country. Instead, she is stoking further division and is unable to resolve the central issues facing Britain today. She is, frankly, unable to govern. The Prime Minister faces a clear choice—the one endorsed by the country and many in her party—which is either to listen and change course or to go. Which is it to be?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman asks about the indicative votes tonight, but I actually answered that question in this House earlier this week. He might want to talk to his shadow Brexit Secretary, who made it clear that the Labour party will not commit to supporting the result of any of the indicative votes tonight. The Leader of the Opposition then talks about what is happening in this country, so let us just look at what is going to happen in this country next week: nearly £1 billion extra for the police, £1.4 billion more for local councils, £1.1 billion extra for our schools, another fuel duty freeze, another rise in the national living wage and another tax cut. That is happening under the Conservatives. What would Labour give us? He wants to scrap Trident and pull out of NATO. Labour would give us capital flight, a run on the pound and a drop in living standards. The biggest threat to our standing in the world, to our defence and to our economy is sitting on the Labour Front Bench.

Maggie Throup: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to reform the Government’s online petition system, which currently accepts unverified signatures from across the world? This fundamental flaw can produce an inaccurate reflection of public opinion on important issues, such as revoking article 50, and leaves our democracy potentially under threat of manipulation by foreign state aggressors.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Like the traditional paper petition system, we need to strike a balance in the e-petition system between allowing people to easily register their support for issues that are important to them while discouraging dishonesty. I have been assured that the Government Digital Service has been constantly monitoring signing patterns to check for fraudulent activity. I am sure she will understand that I cannot comment in more detail on the security measures that are taken, but petitions are subject to checks as part of due diligence.

Ian Blackford: I am sure the House will want to join me in welcoming the members of the 6th Royal Scots Reserves who are joining us in the Gallery today and in thanking them for their service.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the cost this Prime Minister will pay to force her disastrous deal through is the price of her departure. Yet again, another Tory Prime Minister is willing to ride off into the sunset and saddle us with a crisis in the UK and an extreme right-wing Brexiteer coming into Downing Street. Does she feel no sense of responsibility for what she is about to do?

Theresa May: My sense of responsibility and duty has meant that I have kept working to ensure that we deliver on the result and the will of the people.

Ian Blackford: Let me help the Prime Minister. She can still change course; it is not too late. On Saturday I joined Opposition leaders and 1 million people to demand a second EU referendum, and 6 million people have signed an online petition demanding that the Prime Minister rethinks her strategy. Today this House will give her a way out, a chance to prevent disaster. Will she finally respect the will of Parliament, or will she continue to allow Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom to be held hostage by the extreme right wing of the Tory party and the DUP?

Theresa May: I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman joined the march for a second referendum. Last week his policy was revoking article 50, and now his policy is having a second referendum. Let us look at what the Government are doing: the Government are delivering on the vote of the 2016 referendum. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to stay in the EU. [Interruption.] All the Scottish nationalists nod their heads and say they want to stay in the EU, and what would that mean? It would mean staying in the common agricultural policy—not in the interests of Scottish farmers. It would mean staying in the common fisheries policy—not in the interests of Scottish fishermen. It is Scottish Conservatives who are standing up for the interests of Scotland’s farmers and fishermen.

Bill Wiggin: Under my right hon. Friend’s Government, 1 million more disabled people are in work, but I am sure she would like to do so much more. For example, can she get disabled access for Ledbury station so that disabled passengers can simply get off the train, saving them an extra 20-minute journey to Hereford and back? The Access for All programme is too slow, and disabled people need to go to and from work, too.

Theresa May: May I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the Government’s record in helping more disabled people get into the workplace? We do want to tackle the injustices that face disabled people and, as he says, if we are to enable disabled people to go as far as their talents will take them, we need to ensure that they have access to work and are able to travel to work easily, conveniently and confidently, as everybody else does.
Our Access for All programme has an additional £300 million of funding to upgrade historical station infrastructure. I understand that Ledbury station is being considered for part of that funding, and we expect to make an announcement shortly.

Chris Elmore: Violent crime has risen by 19% and robberies have risen by 17%, and we have all seen the devastating and tragic impact of the increase in knife crime in our communities. This is the reality of the Prime Minister’s reckless cuts since 2010, with youth centres closed, police budgets slashed and the closure of all early intervention services across the UK. I plead with and beg the Prime Minister to understand that we need more real investment—before any more lives are lost.

Theresa May: I say to the hon. Gentleman that South Wales police are getting an increase in their budget in 2019-20. We have protected police funding since 2015, in direct contrast to a Labour party that suggested that it should be cut by 10%.

Jack Lopresti: When I have asked on previous occasions why we cannot stop this ongoing, politically motivated witch hunt of our Northern Ireland veterans, the answer has always been, “We cannot interfere with the judicial process.” But surely the Good Friday agreement was entirely predicated on interfering with the judicial process, with convicted terrorists being let out of prison, royal pardons and letters of comfort being provided to terrorists on the run. I have a son who serves in the Royal Artillery, Gunner Michael Lopresti, the fourth generation of his family to do so. So can my right hon. Friend reassure him that when he goes on an operational tour, which he is very keen to do, if something goes wrong, officers lose control of the situation and terrible mistakes are made, in 50 years’ time he will not be dragged out of bed at six in the morning, taken to a police station, questioned and then charged with murder?

Theresa May: First, let me say to my hon. Friend that I congratulate Gunner Lopresti on, and commend him for, the service he is giving to our country. We have been clear, in looking at the issue of Northern Ireland and the legacy there, that the current system is not working well for anyone. On that specific matter, we recognise that about 3,500 people were killed in the troubles, the vast majority of whom were murdered by terrorists. Many of those cases do require further investigation, including those relating to the deaths of hundreds of members of the security forces. That system does need to change, to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors of the troubles. But we are working on proposals across government to take those proposals forward and of course we are looking constantly to make sure that we can give maximum confidence to our brave servicemen and women, who, day in, day out put their lives on the line for us.

Stephen Lloyd: We all know that policing has changed significantly over the past 50 years; we have seen that with cyber fraud and cyber-bullying, and the recent tragic increases in knife crime. On the way, the public have lost trust in politicians when it comes to policing. There is a way to restore that trust, Prime Minister: will you commit to setting up a police royal commission, so that facts and evidence, rather than political spin, prepare our police to properly tackle 21st century crime?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the nature of crime is changing—or we are seeing new types of crime being introduced. The police need to have the ability and resources to deal with those, and the understanding of how best to do so. I do not think we need a royal commission to do that; one of the things I did as Home Secretary was to set up the College of Policing, and one of the points of that college is to ensure that it is identifying new types of crime and identifying how best to deal with all types of crime, so that we have the confidence that our police are using the best tools available to them.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I have an unlicensed airfield—Eshott—in my constituency. It is a small business that is continuing a long history of general aviation on that site ever since the airbase was built during world war two as the home for one of the largest Spitfire bases. A neighbours’ dispute is threatening the safety of the runway, but the Civil Aviation Authority is refusing to assist the owners to enforce safety orders. Can the Prime Minister please help us to stop a totally avoidable disaster?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue, and safety in aviation is absolutely paramount. I understand that she has raised this issue directly with the aviation Minister, who is looking at it carefully as a matter of urgency. We are hoping for a positive resolution for all parties involved. The Minister will be writing to my hon. Friend as soon as possible, but I also know that the CAA has been in contact with all parties involved. She is right to raise this important issue and urgent action is being taken.

Carol Monaghan: The condition myalgic encephalomyelitis affects approximately 25,000 children in the UK. When those children’s parents make the extremely difficult decision to remove their sick child from a programme of graded exercise therapy, child-protection proceedings are triggered against many of these families. In the midst of this Brexit chaos, will the Prime Minister commit to looking into this issue, to ensure that loving parents who are caring for extremely sick children are not threatened with that child being taken into care?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady has raised an issue that I was not aware of previously. I am happy to look into it and to make sure that the responsible Ministers look into it, too.

Peter Bottomley: Following the referendum result, the Government have had the responsibility of negotiating the withdrawal and transition, and then there will be future negotiations. Up to now, the deal has not passed Parliament because of three incompatible groups that surround the Government: those who want to stay in, those who want to be out-out, and the Labour party, with its vague policy that even the Labour leader does not agree with. Most people in the country want the Prime Minister to succeed and the deal to go through so that we get the best possible advantage in future arrangements.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the message that I consistently get from people throughout the country is that we want to deliver Brexit. There is a way to guarantee the delivery of Brexit, and that is supporting the deal.

Jamie Stone: My constituents are pleased that it has been decided that the UK’s first space-launch facility will be in the north of my constituency. They are pleased not least because it gives us a great opportunity to redeploy the considerable skills that we have at Dounreay in Caithness. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a splendid business opportunity, not only for my constituency and for the UK, but in terms of  building and launching rockets for countries in Europe and the rest of the world that will never have their own launch facilities?

Theresa May: I am a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not give me another invitation to come to a hotel in his constituency, but there we are. I thought perhaps I might have been able to look at the spaceport from the hotel windows. He raises an important point, and the development of this spaceport is significant. It will indeed be good for local business and local jobs—skilled jobs in an important area of employment—but as the hon. Gentleman says it will also give opportunities for the UK to offer services to other countries throughout Europe that are not able to provide those services for themselves. It is good for our economy, for the hon. Gentleman’s local economy, for his constituents and for the UK as a whole.

Kirstene Hair: Unlike most professions, those in the armed forces do not get to choose where they are stationed, but those in Scotland are undoubtedly delighted to serve there. More than 7,000 of our armed forces personnel in Scotland are penalised by Nicola Sturgeon’s high-tax agenda. In my view, that is simply unfair. Will the Prime Minister commit to extend for another year the compensation that the UK Government paid last year to armed forces personnel based in Scotland? We need to send a clear signal that the Scottish Government are prepared to penalise those in our armed forces, while it is this Conservative UK Government who will always ensure that those who put their life on the line for our country will come first.

Theresa May: First, I pay particular tribute to everyone stationed at RM Condor in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She is absolutely right about those brave men and women across our armed forces who put their lives on the line for us. She is also right that both this year and next the SNP’s tax hike unfairly hits a majority of our brave and loyal service personnel based in Scotland. That leaves thousands of them out of pocket, and that is wrong, so we will again be providing financial mitigation payments to those negatively impacted for the tax year 2019-20 by these Scottish income-tax hikes that mean Scottish income tax is higher than the UK’s. A single financial mitigation payment will be made retrospectively in 2020. The Scottish Government may ignore our armed forces; we stand by them.

Diana R. Johnson: No matter what happens with Brexit, I am sure we all agree that we need a new industrial renaissance in the north. With the northern powerhouse and Yorkshire devolution stalling, is it not about time that we gave the same priority and attention to the Humber docklands as has been given to the London docklands for the last 40 years?

Theresa May: I was absolutely clear when I became Prime Minister that we want a country that works for everyone. Our modern industrial strategy is exactly aimed at ensuring that we are developing across parts of the country that need it and that perhaps feel that they have been left behind. The hon. Lady talked about investment in the north and the northern powerhouse. The northern powerhouse is not stalling. We have made  significant investment into the northern powerhouse and into infrastructure in the north, and into the deals that we have negotiated across the north, to ensure that the benefits of the economic prosperity under this Government are felt across every part of our country.

Steve Brine: A very large number of my constituents voted to remain in 2016, many voted to leave and some were not old enough to take part—they all have a view. They and their MP now overwhelmingly want to leave the EU with a deal, so that we exit in a safe way that protects our economy and their jobs and just lets us move on. In the long term, we want a deep and special relationship with the European Union, while embracing the opportunities of the 168 countries that are not part of it. Just so I am clear before I vote this evening, will the Prime Minister confirm—just between us, if she likes—that none of that is contrary to the manifesto that she and I stood on two years ago?

Theresa May: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent work as a Minister. He was an exemplary Minister, and I am sorry that he felt it necessary to resign from the Government. We do indeed want a deep and special partnership with the European Union. We also, as he says, want to embrace the opportunities of the 168 countries that are not part of it, by having an independent trade policy. That is precisely what is delivered by the deal that the Government have negotiated with the European Union. We can guarantee our leaving the European Union with a deal and in a safe way by ensuring that the deal is supported, so that we leave the European Union, as set out by the EU Council, on 22 May.

Chi Onwurah: Newcastle voted, by 50.7% to 49.3%, to remain. It divided our city, and I was determined that we should not have to vote again, but this is a complete shambles. Parliament gridlocked, Government paralysed, businesses stalled, jobs lost, households stockpiling, our global reputation trashed and a Prime Minister incapable of holding her Cabinet together, never mind the country. Will she consider the possibility that she is making a terrible mistake?

Theresa May: If the hon. Lady wants to ensure that we are able to deliver on the overall vote of the referendum in a way that protects jobs, our Union and our security, and in a way that is orderly and guarantees Brexit for the British people—she said that she did not want a second referendum—I suggest that she gets behind the deal.

Bill Cash: Two days ago, I asked the Prime Minister if, as absolutely required under the ministerial code and the Cabinet manual, she sought the Attorney General’s advice on her authorisation of the extension of the exit date, and whether she would publish that advice. She refused to answer. Distinguished lawyers and former judges are convinced that the so-called international agreement is unlawful; I sent her a letter about that yesterday. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet considered the regulations at all. The motion to approve the regulations will come before the House this evening. The European Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee will need to see the  advice of the Attorney General before the end of the day, when the motion will be received by the House. Where is the advice of the Attorney General? Will she produce it and withdraw the motion?

Theresa May: It is a matter of international law that the date of the UK’s exit has been changed. The purpose of the SI this evening is to reflect that change in domestic law. Should the SI not pass, there would be severe uncertainty for citizens and businesses, and contradictory provisions between EU rules and UK rules, but it would be clear that the date of our exit had changed. The House of Commons voted to seek an extension to article 50, and an agreement was reached with the European Council in relation to that. My hon. Friend has raised the question of the commencement order with me previously. The commencement order is due to come into effect on the date that we leave the European Union. I know that he wants to leave the European Union, and we can of course leave the European Union. Dare I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if he cares to back the deal, we could guarantee leaving?

Afzal Khan: This weekend reported that 15 Tory councillors who were suspended for Islamophobia or racism had been quietly reinstated. The Conservative party has so far failed to quell fears that it is in denial about Islamophobia. Since I asked the Prime Minister about this issue in June 2018, there has been no concrete action. Will she instruct her party chairman to respond to the three letters that I have sent him on this subject, and when will the Tory party adopt the definition of Islamophobia set out by the all-parliamentary group on British Muslims, as the Labour party, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Mayor of London and councils across the country have done?

Theresa May: The Conservative party has a complaints process that deals with complaints of Islamophobia and of any other sort against councillors or other members of the party. It is absolutely clear that discrimination or abuse of any kind is wrong. We take action where there are cases of discrimination or abuse. The hon. Gentleman says that we have not acted since he raised this issue in 2018. We have acted on cases. The party chairman takes very seriously any allegations that are brought before the party and we will continue to  do so.

John Baron: Most of us would prefer a good deal to no deal at all, but may I urge the Prime Minister to ignore the dire forecasts about what would happen should we leave on World Trade Organisation terms? It is the same people who predicted doom and gloom in 2016 if we voted to leave. Since then, we have had record low unemployment, record high investment and record manufacturing output. Those people were wrong then. They are wrong now. We could be leaving as per the legal default position of article 50, which is without a deal.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend references leaving on WTO terms. Of course, what I want—what I think is right and what the Government consider right for the United Kingdom—is for us to be able to negotiate trade agreements with countries around the world that give us  a better operation with those countries, rather than just the WTO basis. But I also want us to be able to negotiate a good trade deal with the European Union. We want a good trade deal with our nearest trading neighbours, and opportunities for good free trade agreements around the rest of the world.

Jim Shannon: I have a very important question for the Prime Minister. There are 1,152 people living with dementia in my constituency alone. With the cost of dementia to society across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland predicted to be £30 billion by 2021, what commitment can she make to increase dementia research into new avenues of discovery that could lead to a cure or treatment? Will she commit the Government to allocating just 1% of the societal cost of dementia towards research annually?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. He mentioned the number of his constituents who are living with dementia. Across all our constituencies, there are increasing numbers of people living with the condition. That is why we have committed to delivering our dementia 2020 challenge in full. The challenge supports research into dementia, which he specifically mentioned. The UK research community is playing a significant role in the global effort to find a cure or a major disease-modifying treatment by 2025. We have committed to double spending on dementia research by 2020—the equivalent of around £60 million per annum—and we are on track to meet that commitment. As he referenced, much of this investment is for research to better understand the nature of dementia, to inform the development of future treatments and to find ways to prevent the onset of the condition. Preventing the condition is of course the best route to take. Meanwhile, we look to provide better treatment for those with the condition.

Mike Wood: Thirty years ago, Margaret Thatcher told the UN General Assembly that the threat from global warming needed an equivalent response from the whole world. What progress is being made on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute towards man-made climate change?

Theresa May: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. He has also reminded people that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who was one of the first world leaders to raise the issue of climate change and to put it on the international agenda. He asked about some of the changes that have taken place. Between 2010 and 2017, we reduced the UK’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 23%; in 2018, nearly 50% of UK electricity came from low-carbon sources; and UK CO2 emissions have fallen for six years in a row. That is just a few of our achievements. That is our record as a Government. But of course we continue to work internationally to help to deal with this issue, and that is why we believe it is so important to adhere to and remain part of the Paris climate change agreement.

Nigel Dodds: I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming the signing yesterday of the heads of terms—the agreement—on the Belfast city regional deal, the first city deal in  Northern Ireland, which it is estimated will bring about 20,000 new jobs, £350 million of investment by the Government, and a lot of extra investment by local councils and the private sector. Will she confirm that she will do everything in her power, in the absence of devolved government—the civil service signed on behalf of Northern Ireland—to ensure that there will be no impediment to the good progress of that city deal, which has been welcomed right across the community in Northern Ireland?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about the considerable benefits that these city deals can bring in bringing together provision by both government at all levels and the private sector. I absolutely take his point that in the absence of devolved government we need to make sure that there is no impediment to moving ahead with this city deal as fast as possible and commit to ensuring that that does indeed take place.

Andrew Selous: The Prime Minister knows of the huge improvements to the quality of clinical care brought about by the Getting It Right First Time programme authored by Professor Tim Briggs, who I brought to see her, and indeed to see Gordon Brown as well. Given the importance our constituents place on a good service from their local GP practice, will she ensure that the general practice roll-out of Getting It Right First Time is speeded up so that the excellent practice in places like Worksop, Whitstable and Peterborough can be made available to all our constituents?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend not only for his question but for bringing Professor Tim Briggs to see me. When Professor Briggs came to see me, he did raise this issue of spreading the concept of getting it right first time beyond hospital consultants and into GP practices. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should make sure that we do that. We want to make sure that absolutely the best practice is adopted by GP practices across the whole country—that is for the benefit of all our constituents.

Chris Bryant: Skin cancer is on the rise in the United Kingdom. As many Members know only too well, it can kill, though when detected very early, or early enough, the NHS is able to perform absolute miracles—thank God. Is it not time, though, in the UK in particular, that we had a major public health campaign to persuade people to check out their body to see whether they have any suspicious moles, to take those suspicious moles to the doctor, to avoid the sun in the midday heat, to cover their children with at least factor 30, and to make sure that we can save lives—because if people are in doubt, they should check it out, and if they do, we can save lives?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point, and he speaks on this issue from personal experience. He is absolutely right. We need to  ensure that people are aware of the dangers, aware of the signs that they need to take notice of and aware that they need to take them to their doctor, because lives can be saved. The Health Secretary has heard the passionate case that the hon. Gentleman has made in relation to public health information on this, and I am sure that he will be happy to meet him to discuss this further.

Martin Vickers: I hope that the American ambassador is enjoying his visit here today as much as he enjoyed his visit to north-east Lincolnshire last Friday, when I was able to join him at Young’s Seafood in Grimsby, where we enjoyed some of the finest seafood possible. Does the Prime Minister agree that Brexit increases the opportunity to build on our existing trading relationship with the United States?

John Bercow: We hope the ambassador’s palate was satisfied. I dare say we will be hearing about it if it was not.

Theresa May: I assure my hon. Friend, having recently visited north-east Lincolnshire, that we all enjoy our visits there and seeing the many opportunities across the economy. He talked about seafood and fishing opportunities. He is absolutely right: ensuring that as we leave the European Union we have the ability to have our own independent trade policy means that we will be able to have free trade agreements around the world, including with the United States. As we have heard on many occasions, we are keen on both sides of the Atlantic to be able to pursue that free trade agreement.

Caroline Lucas: One of the many tragedies associated with this Brexit chaos is the huge distraction it is from other key priorities such as the climate catastrophe. Just this week, we learned that global climate emissions have hit their highest ever level. In the Prime Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), she only gave half the story. The other half is that the UK is way off track to meet our long-term climate targets, and our consumption emissions are down just 4%. Will she support growing calls for a green new deal—a green transformation of our economy, creating hundreds of thousands of good-quality jobs in constituencies up and down this country?

Theresa May: First, the hon. Lady should do more to welcome the action that this Government have taken on that issue. Secondly, she will have noted that clean growth is one of the challenges we have set in our modern industrial strategy. For a long time, people used to say that it was not possible to deal with climate change and environmental issues without damaging the economy. That is absolutely wrong. Actually, clean growth is a very good opportunity for us to take economic benefits. When I visited north-east Lincolnshire, I went to Ørsted and saw the work it is doing on offshore wind farms, which is making a huge impact on renewable energy in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that this Government are looking at the opportunity of hosting COP 26 in the UK.

POINTS OF ORDER

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) made in Prime Minister’s questions some allegations about the petitions system. I point out that the petition to revoke article 50 had 96% of its signatures from the UK, and the Government Digital Service has in place both automated and manual systems to detect bots and other fraudulent activity. Can you do anything to ensure that, if Members wish to undermine the most successful parliamentary petitions system in the world, they do so on the basis of facts and find out those facts from the Committee before they raise it in this Chamber?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I do not think it is for me to advise on the identification of facts, which I imagine would be an extremely lengthy, possibly painful and conceivably unproductive exercise. However, I do not treat her point with levity. I will not arbitrate between her and the hon. Member for Erewash, and no one would expect me to do so.
I would like, however, to acknowledge the outstanding work of the Petitions Committee under the august and respected chairmanship of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and to emphasise that the staff who support the Committee display exemplary professionalism. I do not imagine, to be fair, that the hon. Member for Erewash would cavil at that at all; I do not think that that was her point. I want to put on the record that they are dedicated, hard-working and extremely skilled staff discharging a public duty on behalf of Parliament in the public interest.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I will come to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but first I call Vicky Ford.

Vicky Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In order to come into the House of Commons from the tube station today, one has to walk past a large poster saying “Death” and then, underneath it, the words “to democracy”. It is not clear how the protesters want to carry out their death wish—whether it is to democracy, to those of us who are elected as part of democracy, or to members of staff who work for us as democratically elected Members—but there can be no place in our public life for intimidation of Members of Parliament or their staff. While we respect the right to free protest, may we ask again if you can look at the right to freedom of speech versus the intimidation of those in public life and how we are protected around this Parliament?

John Bercow: The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I respect the force of her observation and the sincerity that underlies it. There is of course a delicate balance between freedom of speech on the one hand and a safe space for parliamentarians and for those who report our proceedings on the other. As the hon. Lady, who is an extremely assiduous participant in the Chamber, will attest, this matter has been raised before in the  Chamber—there is no harm in its being raised again; there is considerable necessity, no doubt, for doing so—and I have made the point that we in this House have made representations to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and had regular contact with Cressida Dick and her senior officers in order to make the case for a more proactive policing approach of a character and on a scale that will protect people going about their daily business either as parliamentarians or as journalists, or indeed as members of the public who fall into neither of those categories.
I know the hon. Lady will understand when I say—I do not say it with an ounce of flippancy; I say it because I think it is right, and I do not think she would suggest otherwise—that I cannot be the poster policeman. It is not for me to police posters, and it is not for any Member of Parliament to police posters. I accept that there is an ambiguity about the poster to which she has referred, and I acknowledge that it may be regarded by some as intimidating. Moreover, many of the threats to people have in particular been threats to female colleagues and female journalists, and we need to take careful account of that. I will relay the hon. Lady’s remarks to Eric Hepburn, the Parliamentary Security Director, and, as necessary, will have further discussions with the police.

Stephen Doughty: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I did promise the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and it would seem unkind to deny him a moment longer.

Philip Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Recently, the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who is in his place, came and made a very welcome visit to the Shipley constituency. Unfortunately, he did not have the courtesy to let me know beforehand that he was coming. This follows hot on the heels of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), coming to visit the Shipley constituency, who did not have the courtesy to tell me that he was coming to visit my constituency either. Do not get me wrong, Mr Speaker—they are very welcome to visit the Shipley constituency. Anything that draws attention to the fact that my Labour opponent is a hard-core Corbynista, who will be a loyalist to a Marxist Government in her ideal world, is very much to be welcomed, and I hope next time they will bring Owen Jones and Eddie Izzard with them as well. Would you not agree, however, that they should at least have the courtesy to let me know when they plan to make a political visit to my constituency?

John Bercow: Yes. I quite understand Members’ desire to visit the constituency of the hon. Gentleman. I say that not merely in the abstract, but on the strength of my very agreeable personal experience. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visited his constituency with him to speak to school students some time ago, and I positively salivated over the experience, so I can quite understand why others would want to visit Shipley.
Members should do each other the courtesy of prior notification. This matter is now regularly being raised by Members on both sides of the House, and I hope there will not be further recurrences of discourtesy.

Anna Soubry: Further to the point of order from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), Mr Speaker—and I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) wants to raise what I suspect will be the same point. As you know, Mr Speaker, following an incident involving the hon. Member for Chelmsford last week, we have had further incidents outside that entrance to the tube station. There are not simply posters, although that is bad enough; members of our staff are being intimidated in what is now a very much confined area. Further to that, a member of the Lobby told me that when she left this place at 11 o’clock on Monday night, she went past people who were injecting class A drugs. There was then an incident outside the entrance itself, where the gates are into the tube station.
In short, Mr Speaker, a number of us have done exactly what you have asked us to do. We have raised all of this with the senior police commander and directly with the gentleman whose name I have forgotten. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth did so in an email, as I know because I was copied in to it. Fine words—no action, and it is not acceptable. What is happening outside that entrance to this place is a serious threat to the safety of everybody who uses that entrance.

John Bercow: I think the fairest thing I can say to the right hon. Lady, whose extremely alarming personal experience lends weight to her observation, is that I might usefully convene a meeting with our advisers to be attended by those Members who are airing their concerns today. I think that is the fairest thing I can say, and the Leader of the House herself may wish to attend that meeting. I obviously cannot resolve the issue here and now, but so that we are all in one room and preferably, at the end of the conversation, in the same place, what better way but to have a meeting sooner rather than later? I hope the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) will accept that I cannot pursue it further now, but I hope that is a constructive approach.

Stephen Doughty: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

John Bercow: I am not sure how much “further” there is, but I call Stephen Doughty.

Stephen Doughty: Mr Speaker, I just want to confirm to you that I in fact spoke to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner yesterday, after she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, to raise these concerns directly with her. Unfortunately, this issue is not being dealt with to our satisfaction. We have now raised it with the Home Secretary as well, and with parliamentary security officials. Staff and Members are being threatened.
May I add, Mr Speaker, that the behaviour of some individuals, particularly on social media, with sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic language directed at Members of Parliament because of the ways that they vote and the opinions they hold, has  to be dealt with. There is a huge responsibility on the social media companies to take action as well; it is not just the posters and physical threats of intimidation.

John Bercow: I accept that the abuse is wider and must be addressed—indeed, I do—and I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying what he has said.

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask this question to seek your guidance, because I think what I am going to refer to is a novel thing. It has become clear that the Government have been buying Facebook ads to send out—to all of our constituents, presumably—the Prime Minister’s views in putting herself on the side of the people and setting the people against MPs. Clearly, Facebook has not been available as a way to do this until recently, but we now have Government money being spent so that the Executive can actually say controversial and potentially dangerous things about the legislature. Can you give me any guidance on how we might pursue this, because it seems to me to be a very alarming new trend?

John Bercow: If the hon. Lady had an allegation of contempt to make, it would have to be made in writing to me. More widely, and I am not insensitive to her concern, I think I would need to look at the specifics, and rather than shoot from the hip now and offer a response that may be ill informed and unsatisfactory, I would prefer to offer a well informed and satisfactory response. The route to that might be an exchange between us in writing, and I look forward to receipt of the hon. Lady’s letter.

Marsha de Cordova: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two weeks ago, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), resigned. To date, the Prime Minister has yet to appoint a new Minister to that post. The role has strategic importance and there is utter chaos in the Department for Work and Pensions—there are seven reviews into disabled people being wrongly denied social security, and the assessment framework for employment and support allowance and personal independence payment is in crisis. Those issues are important, and I seek your guidance on how I can go about holding the Government and the Department to account.

John Bercow: The short answer is by persistence: persist, persist, persist; pose questions; press the case; push the point of view that you wish to express. This is a very serious matter—I would not dream of treating it otherwise. The hon. Lady is speaking up—as, indeed, the Minister responsible for those matters would be expected to speak up—for the interests of disabled people. However, I hope that she will not take it amiss if I say that although I have a considerable number of matters on my plate, ministerial reshuffles are not among my responsibilities—thankfully so. I rather think the House would echo my saying that thankfully they are not matters for the Speaker.

Mark Francois: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will shortly move on to discuss the business motion, which will, if it is passed, govern the conduct of the indicative votes this afternoon. It states:
“Members may record their votes on each question under arrangements made by”
you, Sir. So may I take it that at some point fairly soon, you will explain to the House what those arrangements are and how they will work? May I ask you specifically to scotch a rumour, which was circulating this morning and is probably inaccurate, that there will be some sort of secret ballot and that constituents will not know how their MPs have voted? Will you explain how—because presumably it will not be in Hansard—constituents will be able to tell how their Member of Parliament voted on each of the motions that you select?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will indeed make a statement or an announcement to the House on that matter in a timely way. Of course, it is for the House to agree—or not, as the case may be—to a business motion. However, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is perturbed by the prospect of secret—and thereafter to remain secret—votes, I think I can put his mind at rest. There is no such plan. I hope that reassures the right hon. Gentleman. He has a sunny countenance in the circumstances, and we should be grateful for that.

Alex Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 February at Prime Minister’s questions, I highlighted the decision by the Tees Valley Mayor to spend £90 million of taxpayers’ money on buying the loss-making Durham Tees Valley airport when local people in most parts of the area cannot get a bus home after 6.30 pm. I asked whether the Prime Minister could help them out. She answered by claiming that the bus service had been considerably expanded across the midlands and the north, but according to a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, outlining the statistics, that is most certainly not the case. The Prime Minister may therefore have inadvertently misled the House. Is there anything you can do to encourage a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to correct the record and acknowledge that the vast increase in bus services that the Prime Minister suggested simply has not materialised?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of that point of order. Responsibility for the veracity of what is said in the Chamber is that of each individual Member, including members of the Executive branch, up to the highest level. If a Minister reckons to have made a mistake, it is their responsibility to correct the record. I am not aware of any imminent intention on the part of the Prime Minister to correct the record, but knowing the hon. Gentleman’s perspicacity and tendency to focus his beady eye on the activities of Government, I feel sure that he will be looking out for what he thinks is the required correction. Whether he will look out to his advantage or whether he will be disappointed remains to be seen.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This point of order about today’s business is genuine, even though it may seem trivial to others. We are in unique circumstances. It is the first time since I have been a Member of Parliament that a  business motion will not be moved by the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box. I understand that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will move the business motion. He is allowed to be in that position only because he got hundreds of Opposition votes and 30 from the Conservative Benches. I sit on Her Majesty’s Government’s Benches, and I support Her Majesty’s Government—[Interruption.]—at least most of the time. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I was rather enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman talking about his support for the Government. I thought that I ought to learn more and be educated about that.

Peter Bone: The point is that I assume that the business motion will not be moved from the Dispatch Box, and I understand that. However, surely the right hon. Member for West Dorset should at least move the motion from the Opposition Benches, given that Opposition votes put him in a position to do it. That is a serious point. Otherwise, do I have to move to the Opposition Benches to speak against the motion?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has raised his point with some force and insistence. However, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is just that: the right hon. Member for West Dorset. That constituency is represented by a right hon. Member who, for the vast bulk of his career—we came into the House together—has voted with the Government. In recent times, somewhat to his chagrin or even distress, he has felt unable to do so. However, he is making his case today as a constituency Member of Parliament, and he sits on the Government Benches. If he were to perambulate to the other side, it would be regarded at the very least as deuced odd.

Daniel Zeichner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) made a point about the Prime Minister’s suggestion that there were 10,000 new bus routes in the midlands and the north. That was quite surprising to those of us who follow transport issues. I seek your guidance on how we could get on the record the actual figures from the Department for Transport. They are that 13,279 routes have been registered and 13,153 routes have been withdrawn, which means that there are actually only 126 new routes. I would grateful if you explained how that can be put on the record.

John Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, and he comes from a constituency that is very academic, rather highbrow, intellectual—

Kerry McCarthy: And he is one.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady observes from a sedentary position that “he is one”, meaning that the hon. Gentleman is highbrow, intellectual and academic. He has found his own salvation. He has got his point on the record. I feel sure that copies of the Official Report will be veritably winging their way to his Cambridge constituents ere long so they can note his prodigious efforts on  their behalf.
If there are no further points of order, we come to the presentation of a Bill. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has been a most patient fellow.

BILL PRESENTED

House of Commons (Precedence of Government Business) (European Union (Withdrawal)  Act 2018) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir William Cash, supported by Sir Bernard Jenkin, John Redwood, Mr Owen Paterson, Priti Patel, Mr David Jones, Mr Mark Francois, Mr Steve Baker, Mr Marcus Fysh, Suella Braverman, Michael Tomlinson and Richard Drax, presented a Bill to give precedence in the House of Commons to Government business in connection with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 until the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April, and to be printed (Bill 367).

SKY LANTERNS (PROHIBITION)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Ruth George: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to use a sky lantern; and for connected purposes.
Last summer, when, after an unprecedented heatwave, a spate of wildfires was raging around the moorland of High Peak, I was shocked to discover that an American company called the Lights Fest was promoting a sky lantern festival at a venue on the moors above Buxton. A sky lantern comprises a paper lantern and a candle, and this company was selling tickets, at £20 or £30 each, for thousands of people to release naked flames across the tinder-dry moors. At the same time, our fire service in Derbyshire and hundreds of firefighters from Greater Manchester and further afield, as well as park rangers, farmers, gamekeepers and our military, were battling dozens of moorland fires, putting their own safety at risk. I pay tribute to them.
Although our fire service, local councils and the Peak District national park and I all objected to the sky lantern festival, we had no authority to prevent it from taking place as it was organised on private land. I wrote to Lights Fest to set out the local fire situation and to ask it to cancel the event, and Derbyshire fire service did the same, but neither the chief fire officer nor I received a response. In the meantime, local people set up an online petition, which quickly gathered almost 10,000 signatures. Fortunately, at that point the venue refused to host the event, so it was finally cancelled with just days to go. It cannot be right, however, that a company can organise such a dangerous event without us having any jurisdiction to prevent it from doing so.
It is not just on dry moorland that sky lanterns are a problem. They have caused significant fires in recent years, most notably at Smethwick in 2013 where more than 200 firefighters tackled a fire in a tyre depot that lasted for three days, caused £6 million-worth of damage and injured 16 firefighters, three of whom needed hospital treatment. Had it not been for CCTV capturing the sight of that sky lantern descending on those tyres, we would not have known that that was almost certainly the cause of the inferno.
Following that incident, in 2013 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Government produced a report that concluded that the
“fire risk associated with the use of sky lanterns is significant.”
In theory, sky lanterns should remain airborne for as long as they are filled with hot air and should fall back down only when the flame goes out. In practice, however, that is not always the case, and therefore sky lanterns can be a significant fire hazard.
A survey of fire and rescue services found that between 2008 and 2011 there had been eight wildfires in Dorset caused by lanterns and one in Northumberland that took 20 firefighters four hours to extinguish.
The DEFRA and Welsh Government report also found:
“When airborne, sky lanterns pose a safety risk to aviation due to possible ingestion into engines.”
The Civil Aviation Authority has said that 48 reported incidents between 2011 and 2012 were due to sky lanterns and helium balloons. The report also states that
“sky lanterns pose a significant risk to the proper and effective operation of coastal rescue services…particularly…red sky lanterns…being mistaken for distress flares.”
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union are particularly concerned about the injuries caused to animals by sky lanterns, which can result in a long and painful death. The RSPCA has reported numerous incidents, including a foal that had to be put to sleep after his legs were so badly injured from bolting through a fence having been terrified by a lantern coming down, and a barn owl that died having become entangled in a lantern frame.
The RSPCA has said:
“Given our remit, the RSPCA’s focus regarding sky lanterns is the damage they can do to an animal’s welfare. Yet, a ban on their use would also have wider social benefits, chiefly enhancing community safety and reducing fire risk, whilst reducing potential problems faced by coastal rescue services and the aviation sector.”
The NFU has long called for a total ban on sky lanterns, which pose dangers and nuisance to farm animals and our countryside. Sky lanterns are a danger to livestock. Animals panic when confronted with an unusual sight such as a sky lantern. Poultry may smother together, leading to suffocation, and other animals may bolt, causing themselves injury. Sky lanterns often leave behind sharp objects such as the metal or bamboo fragment, which can injure livestock either by direct contact or through ingesting the debris. Sky lanterns also pose a significant fire risk to property, crops and livestock. They are a littering nuisance, particularly when there has been a mass release, resulting in a lot of debris for farmers to clear. For those reasons, the NFU wholeheartedly supports a total ban on their use.
More than 200,000 sky lanterns are sold each year in the UK. Following the Smethwick fire and the DEFRA report, an industry code of conduct said that sky lanterns should
“be of a design and construction to ensure that they only fall back to the ground when the fuel cell flame is extinguished and that, once the lantern has landed, any impact on animals or the environment is minimised.”
However, with a paper construction and a naked flame, no design can guarantee it will work as designed in any weather condition.
Each sky lantern should be accompanied by warnings and instructions for use, including:
“Launching a lantern in an inappropriate location or unsuitable weather conditions, or in any manner that results in damage to persons or property may make you liable for criminal charges or civil claims for damages”.
In spite of that guidance, however, problems are still being caused by sky lanterns, and the companies promoting them are seemingly heedless of the guidance.
Last summer's event showed the need to prevent the use of sky lanterns. The chief fire officer for Derbyshire has said that last summer’s wildfires resulted in devastation to the natural landscape. Resources from across the UK fire and rescue service were deployed for several weeks, tackling those fires at great cost to the UK taxpayer. As a chief fire officer leading a service whose main aims are to protect our communities by preventing and responding to fires and other emergencies, he was surprised that appropriate legislation was not in place to prevent the proposed reckless release of sky lanterns in the heart of the Peak District at the height of summer. Our chief fire officer therefore supports the proposed prohibition of the use of sky lanterns in England, to protect our countryside, wildlife, the farming industry and beyond.
All Welsh councils have banned the release of sky lanterns on council-owned land, and 70 councils in England—from Plymouth to Carlisle—have done the same. However, they cannot protect our countryside, animals and people from lanterns released on private land. There have been calls from across this House to prohibit sky lanterns. I hope that the advent of the environment Bill will give the Government an opportunity to put in place this sorely needed legislation. In the meantime, I ask the House please to accept my proposed Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ruth George, Kerry McCarthy, Sir David Amess, Sir Peter Bottomley, Jim Fitzpatrick, Sir Mike Penning, John Spellar, Richard Benyon, Sir Patrick McLoughlin, Julian Sturdy, Antoinette Sandbach and Angela Smith present the Bill.
Ruth George accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April, and to be printed (Bill 368).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Bercow: I inform the House that I have not selected any of the amendments.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
(1) That, at today’s sitting –
(a) any proceedings governed by the resolution of the House of 25 March (Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) or this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed and shall not be interrupted;
(b) the resolution of the House of 25 March shall apply as if, at the end of paragraph (b), there were inserted “and then to a motion in the name of a Minister of the Crown to approve the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019”;
(c) notwithstanding the practice of the House, any motion on matters that have been the subject of a prior decision of the House in the current Session may be the subject of a decision;
(d) the Speaker shall announce his decision on which motions have been selected for decision by recorded vote before calling a Member to move a motion under paragraph (f) of the resolution of 25 March;
(e) the first signatory of a motion so selected may inform the Speaker up to 4.00 pm that they do not wish a recorded vote to take place on that motion;
(f) having been so informed, the Speaker shall announce that information to the House and may announce a new decision on selection;
(g) the Speaker may not propose the question on any amendment to any motion subject to decision by recorded vote or on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(h) debate on the motions having precedence under paragraph (f) of the resolution of 25 March may continue until 7.00 pm at which time the House shall proceed as if the question had been put on each motion selected by the Speaker for decision by recorded vote and the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on each such question had been challenged;
(i) in respect of those questions –
(i) Members may record their votes on each question under arrangements made by the Speaker;
(ii) votes may be recorded for half an hour after the Speaker declares the period open and the Speaker shall suspend the House for that period;
(iii) the Speaker shall announce the results in the course of the sitting;
(j) immediately upon the conclusion of the voting period the Speaker shall call a Minister of the Crown to move to approve the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to that motion;
(k) during the period between 7.00 pm and the announcement of the results on the questions subject to recorded vote–
(i) no motion for the adjournment may be made;
(ii) the House shall not proceed to a division other than on the question referred to in sub-paragraph (j); and
(iii) the Speaker may suspend the sitting if any other business, including proceedings provided for in sub-paragraph (j) and in paragraph (g) of the resolution of 25 March, has been concluded.
(2) That, on Monday 1 April –
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;
(b) precedence shall be given to a motion relating to the Business of the House in connection with matters relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union other than any Business of the House motion relating to the consideration by the House of a motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and then to motions relating to that withdrawal and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union other than any motion moved under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
(c) if more than one motion relating to the Business of the House is tabled, the Speaker shall decide which motion shall have precedence;
(d) the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings on any business having precedence before the Business of the House motion at 5.00 pm and call a Member to move that motion;
(e) debate on that motion may continue until 6.00 pm at which time the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on that motion including the questions on amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;
(f) when those proceedings have been concluded, the Speaker shall call a Member to move one of the other motions having precedence;
(g) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House authorities, for the organisation you have tentatively put in place for today. Of course that organisation can only operate if the House approves this business of the House motion.
I would like to begin by explaining, in as plain English as I can, the two paragraphs of which the motion consists, neither of which is in any way complicated, but both of which have been drafted very carefully to ensure that the business proceeds smoothly and in good order as we go through what will no doubt be a quite complicated and highly contentious set of discussions about the substantive motions that have been tabled, from which you, Mr Speaker, have not yet selected, but that will no doubt be announced as a series of selections after we have completed the discussion and votes on the business of the House motion.
Paragraph (1) is an effort to order today’s business in an orderly way, given that there may be a considerable number of substantive motions selected by Mr Speaker and that will therefore be debated, and, at 7 o’clock if the business of the House motion is accepted, to be voted on. I therefore draw the attention of hon. Members first to sub-paragraph (1)(i), which describes the method of voting. It is the intention that, to avoid taking too long voting on the substantive motions, we should retire into the two Lobbies. The Aye Lobby will be devoted to those whose names begin A to K, and the No Lobby will be devoted to those whose names begin L to Z. There will be, in those Lobbies, voting slips—I think of a different colour, but very similar in character to the deferred Division slips that we have used today and are quite used to using—which will be in a bundle and will  relate to all those motions on the Order Paper today that have been selected by Mr Speaker for vote at the end of the day.

David Hanson: This is just a general point. I do not often follow tweets as being law and the way in which things will be, but I have just seen a tweet that says No. 10 will indicate that it will vote against the business motion in an attempt to thwart all the measures the right hon. Gentleman wishes to secure at 7 o’clock this evening. Does he agree that that would be a misuse of parliamentary time by the Government, given the will of the House as expressed only yesterday or the day before?

Oliver Letwin: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is reading a tweet that is a Trumpian tweet or an accurate tweet. I have followed the practice of not paying any attention to tweets of any kind at any time, but it may be, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Government will decide to whip Government Members against the business of the House motion. That is, of course, a perfectly legitimate thing for the Government to do if they wish to do it. It is slightly sad, given that those of us who have prepared the business of the House motion took great care to negotiate with the Government a suitable way to include the statutory instrument, which is needed to alter exit day, at the end of our proceedings. That is provided for in orderly way in the business of the House motion and I had hoped that that degree of co-operation might induce the Government to look kindly on the motion. But I am as perfectly aware, as he is, that it was not the intention of the Government to promote the indicative votes in the way in which the motion does. Therefore, I understand that they may whip against it.
I hope that not only the right hon. Gentleman but those of my hon. Friends who voted for this process in the first place will again vote in a Division, if there is one, to sustain the business of the House motion and to allow us to continue the process that we inaugurated by voting by a narrow, but nevertheless significant, majority for amendment (a), which stood in my name a couple of days ago. I look forward to being in the same Lobby as the right hon. Gentleman as we do that.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend said that a significant majority voted in favour of his amendment. It was 329 votes to 302, which was 52% to 48%.

Oliver Letwin: I think my hon. Friend’s mathematics is perfect. I observe that he has attached quite significant emphasis to the vote on the referendum result. Therefore, I hope that he joins me in the view that the majority for amendment (a) was indeed significant. I would like to point out to him and to some of my other hon. Friends who share his general views on these matters, which I entirely respect, that I, unlike he, have voted consistently, and will continue to vote consistently, for the implementation of that referendum result through the means of the Prime Minister’s deal and through meaningful vote 3, 4, 5 and to infinity. I shall go on voting for the Prime Minister’s deal to fulfil the referendum mandate. I profoundly hope that he might change his mind and join me in the Lobby to do so when it is necessary.

Bob Seely: If there is movement towards meaningful vote 3, and there is some indication that there is, will my right hon. Friend and his somewhat successful parliamentary insurgency work with the Government to ensure that there is time, presumably early next week if not this week, for a meaningful vote 3 to be back and presented to this House, either by way of a paving motion or directly?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend asks an entirely reasonable question to which there is an absolutely definitive answer. There has been no insurgency here—

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Letwin: No. I will in a moment, but I must answer this point first. It is more productive to answer one point at a time.
I am absolutely clear that this is not an insurgency at all. It is an adjustment of the Standing Orders for today, and, if this is agreed, for Monday. It does not affect tomorrow, and nor does it affect Friday, should the Government choose to make Friday a sitting day. Either tomorrow or Friday—personally, I would entirely welcome this—the Government may of course bring forward meaningful vote 3, for which I will vote. I hope my hon. Friends will vote for it. I give my hon. Friend a further piece of good news, of which he will be easily capable of verifying, which is that should meaningful vote 3 pass on Thursday or Friday, there would be no further need for the whole of this process. This process has come about as a result of the increasing concern that many of us have had across the House of Commons that we were heading not towards an approval of the Prime Minister’s deal, but, alas, towards a no-deal exit, which is something I pitted myself against for many months.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am very much enjoying the “Letwin People’s Parliament” already. It has much to commend it. I am sure he finds it as astonishing as I do that the Government intend to vote against this business motion. Surely he will agree with me that there was nothing to stop them bringing forward an amendment to his motion today and that there was nothing to stop them bringing an alternative business motion to the House today?

Oliver Letwin: I promised myself throughout this process that I would be honest with the House and I cannot honestly say that I am astonished that the Government are voting against it. Although I regret it,  I somewhat suspected that it might be the case—as I suspect, in fact, the hon. Gentleman did—but I do share his view that it is a pity that the Government did not do what would have remedied what the Government described as a constitutional oddity by endorsing amendment (a) and, indeed, at the right moment, by putting themselves on amendment (a) as signatories. Under parliamentary convention, which you, Mr Speaker, supervise, they would of course have immediately arrived at the top of the order and superseded any mere Back Benchers. It would have become a Government amendment and the ordinary order of the proceedings of the House would have been restored. That would have been the natural way to go. Alas, the Government decided not to do that and I understand that they had reasons for that.

Peter Bottomley: Returning to the subject of how we will vote, will my right hon. Friend say, or might the Speaker be able to tell us, whether the voting papers will be available before we go into the Lobby to avoid a great big crowd and to avoid slowing down the voting procedure?

Oliver Letwin: I am sure that Mr Speaker will want to say something about that at a later stage, but I believe that the House authorities, who have been extraordinarily assiduous in this and have gone way beyond their mere duty, will have not only provided for the relevant pieces of paper to be in the Lobbies at an early stage, but provided very large numbers of copies of the Order Paper, so that Members will be able very quickly to refer from the voting slips to the actual amendments and nobody has any confusion about what they are voting for or against.

Kate Hoey: The Speaker has ruled that no amendments will be taken with the motion and obviously, I would not challenge him on that. However, is not this business motion today different from what was agreed last week, because now the right hon. Gentleman is proposing Monday as well, and amendment (a), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), has not been selected by the Speaker? Surely we are now voting on something very different from what was agreed last week.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that paragraph (2), which I have not yet had time to talk about because of taking interventions, does indeed book a slot for Monday. The reason why is that I think there is quite a high chance that at the end of today’s votes, despite the best endeavours of the promoters of each of the motions that fall to be debated and voted on, they may not receive majority backing. Perhaps the hon. Lady was not present, but I said during the debate on my amendment (a), very specifically—this point was echoed by many of her hon. Friends in their remarks about amendment (a)—that we all recognise the fact that the first time round, it is very likely that there would not be a natural majority for one proposition or another and that we should therefore regard this as a process and not as a single point in time. I did also specifically say that I therefore anticipated that we would need a further day. In many discussions and interviews, many of us who have proposed the business of the House motion today and who were supporting amendment (a) have made that point. There is no novelty to it; it is simply carrying through what we said would be the case.

Tom Brake: Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that given that the Government have spent over 1,000 days on getting to where we are now, it would not be unreasonable for the House to have one more day to try to resolve this matter?

Oliver Letwin: I do rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. This is not the main burden of what I want to say today, but I share what may be his regret that about two and a half years ago, the Government did not take steps to create a cross-party consensus on  this matter. The Irish Taoiseach did exactly that and put himself in a much stronger position as a result. When all this is over and hopefully we have arrived at some sensible way to deal with the whole Brexit issue, I hope that the whole nation will learn that lesson and we will realise that when we have great national undertakings, it makes sense to try to get a cross-party consensus about how to take them forward.

Gareth Snell: Further to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), what assurances can we have that the business of the House motion that we will be asked to support on Monday will not also include another paragraph (2), which seeks to book a third day for indicative votes and a subsequent motion? I believe that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) referred to it as “daisy-chaining” in a briefing. If that is the case, can the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) be up front about it? Also, what does he think is going to change between today and Monday? Every Member of this House has had the opportunity to table a motion with their thoughts on the way forward. Every Member of this House will have the chance to vote on it in an up and down straight vote, with no knock-out rounds. Will we not just repeat ourselves on Monday with the same potential options and the same votes, with the same arguments?

Oliver Letwin: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, who has played an important part throughout these proceedings, raises both of those points, because they are ones that I wanted to come to anyway. Let me come to them in response to him rather than taking them later.
On the first question of whether there may be later stages beyond Monday, I do not believe that there needs to be any further round of voting after Monday on motions or propositions. I want to be very clear that I have said this to the hon. Gentleman so that he cannot later complain that there was any concealment at all, which is not part of our intention: I believe that if a majority for a particular proposition does emerge on Monday, as I very much hope that it will for reasons that I am about to come to, and if the Government do not immediately signal that they are willing to implement the majority view of the House of Commons at that point and if the Government have not by then—as I hope they have, although others may not—achieved a vote in favour of MV3, I think it would make sense for the House to move to the position of beginning to legislate to mandate the implementation of that majority. I think that would be a reasonable proceeding at that stage. It is only possible if we reach a majority view, of course.
I come now to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, which was the question of why Monday will be any different from today. The difference lies in two facts. This will be the first opportunity after a very long time—the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made this point—for the House of Commons, in an orderly way, to have the opportunity to express the views of Members in votes on specific propositions and for us all to see the lie of the land. When politicians do that, they very often discover that  there is a basis for compromise and further informal, offline discussion that can lead to the crystallisation of majorities. In addition, it may be possible to structure the following Monday in a way that precipitates a majority, which it has not been the intention to do today. Today is purely indicative votes, and this is put today in a plain, vanilla way, so that everyone simply votes for all the things that they want to vote for and against all the things that they want to vote against, and we will see what the numbers are. This is purely a first set of indications.

Peter Bone: rose—

Bob Seely: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), because he made such a splendid case against me earlier.

Peter Bone: I was trying to compliment my right hon. Friend—I was just suggesting he should be sitting on the Opposition Benches. He is making a very interesting and well-thought-out speech, as he always does, and he is being exceptionally honest with the House, saying that on Monday he will again be taking over the Order Paper and that that would then possibly lead to a legislative programme and a Bill to implement whatever comes out as the most likely thing to succeed. Will he give the House an estimate of how many days he is going to have to take over between now and 12 April so that we can have a guide and at least the Government can have a guide to when they might get some of their business done?

Oliver Letwin: The coda in my hon. Friend’s remark was, I think, an amusement, in the sense that I do not discern a vast pile of other Government business of the first order of importance currently being transacted in this House. The Government are rightly focused, as we all are, on the question of Brexit. We are approaching 12 April, as my hon. Friend and I both know and as he mentioned. Of course, he has a very different view of what would happen to our nation if on the 12th we left without a deal, and I respect that view. It is not my view and I do not believe that it is the majority view of the House of Commons, as expressed in a series of votes. Those of us who are determined to follow that majority view—as conscientiously as he believes that it is a good thing to leave without a deal, we believe conscientiously that it is not a good thing for our country to leave without a deal—want to prevent that eventuality. The only way we can do that is by crystallising an alternative majority and trying to carry it forward. That is what we will do, but there is an easy route to preventing that, which is for him and his like-minded colleagues, whose positions I understand, to compromise—as many of the rest of us have compromised—and to vote for MV3. Were that to happen, none of this would be necessary.

Peter Bone: What about the number of days?

Oliver Letwin: I am sorry—I have not mentioned any more days than the days I have mentioned already because I do not think it will be necessary to have any  more, although, of course, if there were legislation, there would be have to be a day or days for that in the House of Lords.

Bob Seely: I apologise for asking, but I am trying to find out about this process, as I suspect are millions of people throughout the country. I am asking about MV3 next week because, if my right hon. Friend has taken over the Order Paper on Monday, and if, based on the opinion of the House today and on Monday, we legislate for a customs union on Tuesday or Wednesday, MV3 becomes redundant. Is he assuming that the only day for a third meaningful vote on the Government’s withdrawal agreement is this Thursday or Friday, or can he envisage a time next week when there may be space for MV3 to come back—for example, before a day of customs union legislation on the Wednesday?

Oliver Letwin: Again, that is a perfectly reasonable set of questions with a definitive set of answers. On a third meaningful vote this Thursday or Friday, that timetable has been set by the EU—it is not the making of any Member of the House or the Government. The EU made it clear in its legal decision that the withdrawal agreement had to be agreed by the House by 11 pm, I think, but in any event late at night, on Friday in order for 12 April not to be activated and to move us to 22 May. That would be necessary for the Government to pass the withdrawal and implementation Bill, which is in turn necessary for their meaningful vote to be meaningful—without the Bill it is a nothing, as both my hon. Friend and others on both sides of the House who study this very well understand. The fact is that the Thursday/Friday schedule this week has been set by the EU, not any of us, and there is nothing that I or anybody else here can do about it. It is very important therefore—for those of us who want to make sure we do not drop out without a deal on the 12th—to ensure that, if my hon. Friends do not support those of us who would be in the Lobbies voting for MV3 by Friday night, there is an alternative, and this is the only way we can do that.

John Redwood: If the House voted for a particular outcome for negotiation with Europe that the Government thought either not desirable or not negotiable, who would do the negotiating, given that it is normal for only the Government to be a recognised negotiator?

Oliver Letwin: My right hon. Friend, who is one of the two or three most distinguished and long-serving Members of Parliament and had a distinguished record in government, knows as well as I do that he is absolutely right: only the Government of the United Kingdom can negotiate with foreign powers. That is obviously true. It is also true, however, that the Government, like the rest of us, are governed by the law. Just as much as any private individual, Ministers are governed by the law. It frequently happens that, when Ministers bring legislation before the House of Commons and that legislation is amended in a way that they did not wish, they are still compelled to implement the law that the House and the House of Lords have passed as it is written. That is a justiciable matter and they are subject to judicial review if they do not do so. Now, I have said frequently that I   do not think the Prime Minister’s Brexit strategy has been ideally suited to the task, but I have never met an hon. Member of this House, or any other living human being, who is more law abiding than the Prime Minister, so I am certain that she would follow not just the letter but the spirit of the law were there a law that flowed from a majority view of the House of Commons.

John Redwood: When, as is normal, the Government have control of the Order Paper, if the House amends legislation in a way the Government do not like, the Government need not bring that law into effect or go through the remaining proceedings necessary to make it a law.

Oliver Letwin: As one would expect, my right hon. Friend is right, but actually the Government often choose not to do that; they often allow legislation that contains things they do not quite like to go forward because they have some greater objective. The truth is, therefore, that Ministers often do—he and I as Ministers had this experience—find themselves implementing legislation with which they are not wholly in accord, but they know how to do that, and the civil service knows how to support them in doing that, and that is of course what would happen in these circumstances.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is actually a very novel proposition that the House should have to pass a law to effect Government policy in this way? Can he think of any example in his experience—I cannot think of one, and my experience is longer than his—of the Government pursuing a policy on such a vital national matter knowing that they did not have the support of the House of Commons for the way they were going about it and simply defying the majority that had voted for another approach?

Oliver Letwin: As my right hon. and learned Friend is not just a former Chancellor, Lord Chancellor and almost everything else, but is also the Father of the House, he will certainly have more experience of this than most of the rest of us put together, and if he cannot think of such a case, I will certainly not be able to. I do not know of such a case. Indeed, simply because of the possibility that people would raise this issue, I did some research to try to find out whether there was any such case recorded by historians, who have longer virtual memories than we have actual memories, and I could not find one.
That suggests that there is a pretty strong precedent that if the House of Commons, in a matter of extreme significance to the nation, passed a resolution expressing a clear view of how to proceed, it would be not unlawful—so far as I know, though that would be a matter for the Attorney General to rule on, not me—but nevertheless very constitutionally unusual for the Government not to accede to that resolution and to proceed in the way that the House of Commons had requested them to. I profoundly hope that if on Monday we find a majority view in favour of a particular proposition, the Government will say, as they ought to say, that they will carry that forward. I am merely protecting against the possibility that they take the view that it is not a binding utterance by the House of Commons. Under those circumstances,  we have methods, through legislation, of compelling—undoubtedly by law—an action that otherwise might not occur.

Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend may recall that the Maastricht treaty caused a little difficulty, on a cross-party basis, in the House. Had the Government been defeated by a motion disapproving of the treaty, would he and others then concerned about the treaty have been content had the Government then proceeded with their declared policy on the basis that they had stood on it at the election?

Oliver Letwin: The answer is no, obviously, as my right hon. and learned Friend intends. He and I were on opposite sides—bizarrely—on that issue. I actually believe that the whole of this imbroglio is largely due to the fact that the wretched Maastricht treaty was approved by the House in the first place. Had there not been qualified majority voting, the British people would probably never have come to disapprove of the EU in the way that they did and we would have been spared all this, but that is ancient history. He and I have a long record of agreements and disagreements at different times. This afternoon, we are agreed.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), my right hon. Friend said that for the Government to ignore a motion of this House would be constitutionally very unusual, but it has to be said that the process this afternoon is constitutionally deeply irregular.

Oliver Letwin: I am particularly glad that my very distinguished hon. Friend has participated in this part of our proceedings. He has not, though he is an assiduous attender of debates, ever had the horror of having to listen to me on this subject because he has not been present when I have been speaking about it, but I have tried to say to those who have been present on each occasion that the proposition he has just advanced is manifestly false, and the reason is this: the Order Paper of the House of Commons—this is the most ancient principle of our constitution as a matter of fact—is governed by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and those are the property of the House of Commons and nobody else. They are the property not of the Executive but of the House of Commons. The courts recognise that in the principle of comity and never interfere in the proceedings of our House. That principle goes back not to 1906 when the Government—in my view, improperly—instituted Standing Order 14 in its current form, but way back into the origins of Parliament. From the very beginning, Parliament sought to establish its right, through the Speaker and otherwise, to control its own proceedings, which is a very proper thing for Parliament to do. We have been driven to this only in an extreme emergency—that is how some of us see it, though I know that he takes a rather different view—and we are doing it in a perfectly proper way through the amendment of Standing Orders, which it lies open to this House to do.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I cannot entirely agree with the constitutional proposition that my right hon. Friend is advancing. He will recall that, in the Tudor House of  Commons, it was Privy Counsellors who guided the business. It is a principle of the greatest antiquity that the business of the House is guided by those representing the sovereign in Parliament. That principle is being eroded by today’s proceedings.

Oliver Letwin: I little imagined that we would find ourselves debating the sequence of our constitutional history, but because my hon. Friend is genuinely learned in the matter and this may be my only opportunity ever to have this debate with him in the House of Commons before—thank goodness—I leave it, I want to explain to him that the succeeding history of our country was virtually focused on a debate about that very matter. It was because the House of Commons refused to be dominated by Privy Counsellors that all the things that happened in the later 16th and 17th centuries happened. I am on the side of those in the House whom I actually thought that, on the whole, my hon. Friend was on the side of, who wish to assert, over and against the Executive, that, ultimately, sovereignty lies here and not in Whitehall.

Margaret Beckett: I am not entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman, although I have some sympathy with the point that is being made. Surely, however, what we should recognise is that the House has been driven to these unusual proceedings today because the Government have failed to do their job.

Oliver Letwin: We have a stellar constellation here today. The right hon. Lady is another very distinguished Member of the House who has held almost every post imaginable. She tempts me to do what I shall not do, which is to observe that the failure to reach cross-party consensus on this matter had two sides, and it would have been better if the two sides had worked together. That did not happen, and it is because it did not happen that we were at the mercy of the votes of some of my hon. Friends, and that is why we are where we are. I think the right hon. Lady will agree that what matters now is none of that history; what matters now is the fact that we are where we are, and we need to find a solution. That is what this is all about.

Helen Goodman: May I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the business motion? His proposal today is that we should have indicative votes and, depending on where a consensus appears to emerge, the House will have an opportunity to consider these matters again on Monday, and there will be a further business motion for Monday setting out in more detail than paragraph (2) the way in which we will proceed then. I just wonder if he could undertake, as he did before, to share the business motion with the House before the deadline for tabling motions and amendments, so that all Members will be able to make the most of the opportunity on Monday.

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady has raised a very serious and important point. I think we should make that commitment, because people need an opportunity to see what rules of play will obtain on Monday and an opportunity to table amendments, and to consider, in the light of that, how to proceed. I believe that, if we are  talking about tomorrow, Thursday—because the House is not currently due to sit on Friday—the sitting will be curtailed at approximately 5.30 pm, after the Adjournment debate. I therefore think—assuming that the House does not sit on Friday—that we should make a commitment to lay the Business of the House motion for Monday by 3.30 pm tomorrow, so that people have two hours in which to look at it and table amendments if they see fit.
Incidentally, I agree with the hon. Lady—it was part of the burden of what I was saying to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—that there is ample scope for thinking now, and in the succeeding hours, including tomorrow morning, about possible methods of voting on Monday to encourage, or even to ensure, some further convergence to reach a majority in favour of some alternative.

Patrick McLoughlin: Colleagues argue that there is no precedent for events of this kind. There will in future be precedents for such events. That is the way in which parliamentary rules have developed over many centuries.
Will my right hon. Friend now address the point that we do not yet know and will not know for another hour and six minutes: exactly what motions will we be voting on? We are expected to vote on them at 7 o’clock. Will he ensure that in future the House is given a proper choice, rather than the choice that is put by the Chair?

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observation about precedents. As a former Chief Whip, he knows very well how these things happen. It is indeed the case that our constitution has evolved through a series of adjustments, and there will be a precedent in this instance. I hope, incidentally—because I am not actually a revolutionary—that it will not be taken as a precedent for events like this to take place every day of the week. I profoundly hope that our successors in the House will not for many decades face an emergency of the kind that we are currently facing, because this is not a way of proceeding that I think any of us would like our country to face in the future.
As for my right hon. Friend’s point about the motions, I am much more confident than his question suggested that you, Mr Speaker, will select a full range of motions representing a full range of views, and that there will be ample opportunity for people, genuinely and openly, to support the positions that they wish to support and object to the positions to which they object. I think we shall see that when you make your selection, Mr Speaker, because I know that your intention has been—as has mine, and, I think, that of the House as a whole—to use this as a genuine opportunity for people to come together on the basis of looking at a full range of options and having every sensible choice available to them.

Neil Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised—does he, indeed, find it incredible—that the Government apparently do not have an opinion on the motions that we will debate later today—apparently the Cabinet will abstain and there will be a free vote for his colleagues—but do have an opinion about denying the House the opportunity to have the debate on indicative votes because they are going to vote against the motion that he is proposing?

Oliver Letwin: I am in a very odd position, in that, as it happens, I know, roughly speaking, what the official machine has been saying about the whole of these proceedings. I know that it has been raising very serious concerns about the idea of Parliament acting in this way. In fact, it has even been reported to me that one very senior official described the situation as one in which it was necessary for Whitehall to save Parliament from itself—not in a formal meeting, but outside one.
I understand that because, as a Cabinet Minister for six years, I observed the way in which, in trying to govern the country appropriately, Whitehall necessarily takes the view that the Houses of Parliament as a whole are quite an encumbrance. It tries to govern the country in a way that will, so to speak, tolerate and obey the democratic necessities of a legislature that is sometimes annoying. But, so far as is possible, it governs the process. It is very difficult for the official mind to absorb the fact that, ultimately, that is not how our constitution works. Ultimately, how our constitution works is that Governments depend on confidence in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons—or, at any rate, the Houses of Parliament—is the sovereign body: the Crown in Parliament is the sovereign body.
It is actually a very important point that we are making here about how the country is ultimately governed. In that sense, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) that this is a precedent. It is a precedent for Whitehall to recognise that, in an emergency, the House of Commons is capable of controlling its own business in such a way as to find a solution with which the vast majesties of Whitehall and Government have been unable to provide us. If they were able to provide us with that solution, and if my hon. Friends were willing to vote for the proposition which the Government have conscientiously negotiated over a very long time—and, in my view, have rather admirably succeeded in negotiating—we would not be having this discussion. It is because Whitehall has failed, not owing to the inadequacies of any individual but owing to the basic difficulty of the situation, that the Commons is taking these steps, and I think that in those circumstances we are right to do so.

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is being very generous.
Our hon. Friends are concerned about losing control of the Order Paper. Is not the answer, therefore, that if the Leader of the House confirms that we will have a meaningful vote on Thursday or Friday, when they go into the Lobbies, they have one motto in mind: “Vote deal, take back control”?

Oliver Letwin: That is a neat way of expressing my hon. Friend’s view, with which, as it happens, I agree.

Stephen Metcalfe: I am listening very carefully to my right hon. Friend and I think the thrust of what he is saying is that, if meaningful vote 3 were to be approved, none of this would be necessary to go forward. Will he therefore reiterate his call for those on all sides of this argument to support the withdrawal agreement? It may not be perfect for either side, but it is the best thing we have on offer and now is the time to get behind it.

Oliver Letwin: As my hon. Friend knows, that is my view and has been throughout, which is why I have voted for it throughout and will continue to do so.

Martin Whitfield: To come back to the business motion and in particular paragraph (1)(i), could the right hon. Gentleman elucidate what he feels success would be for a motion that we are voting on this afternoon? There is an Aye and a No in the vote, so what will success look like for an individual motion, or is this about a cumulative image created from all the votes for all the motions that Mr Speaker no doubt will choose in due course?

Oliver Letwin: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman brings me back to the business of the House motion, because it is traditional in these circumstances for people who are speaking to say they would like to make some progress and I certainly have not made very much yet. My view is that this is not about the precise number of votes cast for one motion or another, or indeed against one motion or another. It is about whether, when we look at the results as a whole and when we act in the way that I think politicians across the parties acting in the national interest can act, which is to seek a consensus, we get enough data to enable us to have sensible conversations about where we can go next. That is what I think would constitute a success here. I do not know any way to do that other than to have the kind of process we are going through, which is why I suggested we should go through it and so did others.

Andrew Murrison: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the last time we went through something remotely like this was in 2009 in relation to Jack Straw’s well-meaning but ultimately doomed attempt to get a sense of where we should be going with House of Lords reform? I fear that today’s proceedings will end up very much in the same place.

Oliver Letwin: But my hon. Friend needs to attend to the point that those of us who are proposing this have exactly recognised that precedent. What went wrong on that occasion above all was that it was a single point in time, it did not produce a single answer and therefore it was declared a failure. We are not seeking a single point in time here; we are seeking a process. We are using the first stage of that process as an act of discovery. We are then having a number of days in which politicians can talk to one another and try to achieve a consensus. That can be reflected in a further vote or set of votes. That is a very different process. I think that had that process been applied in the case of the House of Lords we might by now have had a sensibly restructured House of Lords, which alas we do not. But that is another piece of history that I am sure I must not deal with.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for giving the House the chance today to express its views. Further to the point just raised by the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the truth is that we do not know what this will produce. It is called indicative votes for a reason: it is intended to give an indication of what the House thinks. But is not the most powerful  point that the uncertainty is not an argument for not trying, bearing in mind that we are potentially 16 days away from leaving with no agreement, if the Prime Minister’s deal does not pass and if the EU were, heaven forbid, to refuse us a further extension? We should really get on with it.

Oliver Letwin: I completely agree with every word of that. The point the right hon. Gentleman makes is exactly the reason why we are proceeding in this way. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and his right hon. and hon. Friends with whom we have been co-operating on this. Actually it has been a pleasure and the reason it has been a pleasure is because we share a fundamental concern with the interests of our country to have a way forward that is orderly and does not leave us with a disaster by mistake. We may differ on many things, but on that we are entirely joined, and that is the very purpose of this exercise.
Mr Speaker, although I have not myself said very much of what I was going to say, I think I have now gone on for much too long—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] It has been in response to quite a lot of interventions. I discern that there are not any more around, so I think it falls to me to resume my seat.

Andrea Leadsom: Mr Speaker, I rise briefly to respond on behalf of the Government. First, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who has sought to ensure that the Government’s business for today, a very important statutory instrument that regularises the legal position vis-à-vis our exit day from the European Union, is able to be addressed.
The Government are disappointed that the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend and others was agreed by the House on Monday. A clear commitment had been made by the Government to provide time for the House to find a majority for a way forward. I take my role as Leader of the House very seriously. I have always been very clear that the Government will listen carefully to Parliament, but today’s motion is an extremely concerning precedent for our democracy.

Kenneth Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Andrea Leadsom: I will not take any interventions, because this is a Back-Bench day in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.
For many years the convention has been that it is for the Government, as elected by the people, and with the confidence of this House, to set out the business. It is for Parliament to scrutinise, to amend, to reject and to approve. What today does is effectively turn that precedent on its head: those who are not in Government are deciding the business, and there are inevitable—

Nicholas Boles: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend just claimed that the people elect the Government; is it not the case that the people elect Members of Parliament who, by majority, decide whether they can form, and support and have confidence in a Government?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is constitutionally correct. He has made his own point in his own way with his customary fluency, but the Leader of the House now has the Floor again.

Andrea Leadsom: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
What today does is effectively turn that precedent on its head: those who are not in Government are deciding the business, and there are inevitable ramifications to that.
I work constantly to represent Parliament’s voice in Government, and today I am genuinely concerned that the decisions we are being obliged to make could result in Parliament being extremely frustrated. It is highly likely that we could be in a position where the preferences of the House simply cannot be achieved. Whatever the House decides needs to be both deliverable and negotiable, and, very specifically, the European Union has been clear in all circumstances that changing the withdrawal agreement is simply not an option.
This Government want to deliver on the referendum of 2016 in a way that maintains a deep and special partnership with the European Union. Urgent action is needed; businesses and people cannot be left in limbo any longer. There are two sides to this negotiation, so I repeat that what the House decides needs to be deliverable and negotiable and also needs to deliver on the referendum.

Anna Soubry: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Andrea Leadsom: I will not.
The Council conclusions agreed last week set out that the withdrawal agreement in all circumstances must be adopted by the United Kingdom, so I urge colleagues to accept that approving the withdrawal agreement—which is complex and which covers wide-ranging areas from citizens’ rights to farming, from overseas territories to security and financial services—has to be the first step. The EU has said that the withdrawal agreement will not be changed, and Parliament needs to accept that before we can look to the future partnership, which is what much of today’s debate will focus on.
Notwithstanding the fact that no amendments have been selected, in particular I hope that should the debate today proceed in accordance with the business of the House motion, it will allow for all motions to be fully considered, rather than just a select few. This would enable Parliament to establish what it does want, rather than what the selection would permit. Mr Speaker, the Government have consistently said that we do not support the approach the House has taken to remove Government control of the Order Paper, no matter the circumstances. For that reason, we will oppose today’s business of the House motion. While it is now up to Parliament to set out the next steps in respect of today’s business, the Government will continue to call for realism in the debate ahead. Any options considered must be deliverable in negotiations with the European Union.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for the business of the House motion, and I hear what  the Leader of the House has said. We are living in unprecedented times, and that is why this business of   the House motion has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It saddens me to look around the Conservative Benches and see some of the most wonderful, fantastic former Ministers, who have now left the Government because they are frustrated and do not see a way forward.
We on this side of the House are going to support the motion. We know that these are unusual circumstances. The House has decided that it wants to proceed in this way, and all hon. Members that I have spoken to today have made this decision. They are Members who have been working here for a long time, including a former Attorney General, the Chairs of Select Committees, the right hon. Member for West Dorset—who has written manifestos for the Conservative party and played a vital role in it—and a former vice-chair of the Tory party. They are excellent people, and they all agree that something has to be done. Mr Speaker, it is you who have to control the business of the House. I am not talking about personalities; I am talking about the office of the Speaker.

Wes Streeting: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for giving way. The Leader of the House claimed at the Dispatch Box that she spoke for this House in Government. How can we possibly take that at face value when she would not take a single intervention, even though the House has made it clear that the business today was to be decided by the House? And this is where it becomes jaw-droppingly hypocritical, when she says—

John Bercow: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not make a personal charge that impugned the integrity of the Leader of the House. Members can make a wider political charge, but not a personal charge.

Wes Streeting: Out of respect for you, Mr Speaker, and for the rules of the House, I will certainly withdraw the word “hypocritical”. However, it was pretty jaw-dropping to hear the Leader of the House claiming that it was the Speaker’s responsibility to select every amendment when she herself believes that we should not vote on  a single amendment today and when she will not be casting a vote one way or another on any of them. Is this not just a complete farce?

Valerie Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Hon. Members have mentioned that the House is listening and that the Prime Minister is listening. The Prime Minister has met hon. Members, but she has not listened to them. The fact is that we are in unusual times. This is a hung Parliament, and the Government are governing on the basis of a confidence and supply agreement and nothing else.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for giving way. I am sure that she will give way to the Father of the House as well, unlike the Leader of the House, who sadly did not do so. Does the hon. Lady share my concern at the assertion that the withdrawal agreement cannot be renegotiated, when we were told in no uncertain terms by the Government that the so-called Malthouse compromise, which would fundamentally change the withdrawal agreement, was to be commended and worked on? In fact, I think that public money was spent on advancing it.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. On the question of whether the withdrawal agreement can be amended, I have sitting beside me the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who has been in discussions with the European Union. We have been in the European Union for more than 40 years, and we know that it would be open to any discussions, such as those that it has held with my right hon. and learned Friend, if that was what was decided. We cannot ignore what our constituents—people of all generations—said to us when they took time out last weekend to tell Parliament exactly what was going on.

Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Lady will recall that the Prime Minister tried to dissuade the House from taking control of the business today by saying that if we did not do this, the Government would allow time for indicative votes to be taken. However, we were never given any details, any clear commitment, or any undertaking that any notice would be taken of those motions. Today, we have an alleged constitutional crisis because the House is setting the business, but if the Government had tabled a motion, an amendment, setting out their own clear proposals for taking the views of the House and discovering what the favoured option was, this whole argument about the process could have been avoided as an irrelevance and we could have resumed the serious business of ensuring that a majority in this House was in support of the Government’s policy being pursued.

Valerie Vaz: I cannot follow that, other than to say that I have always admired the right hon. and learned Gentleman, even before I came to this place. I have always been totally in awe of him, and I absolutely agree with what he says.

Steve Brine: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for giving way. I will support the motion today, just as, with great sadness, I supported a similar motion on Monday to get us here. I will do so because we are living in extraordinary times and because this House of Commons is at an impasse. We, the House of Commons, have to solve this, and this is the last roll of the dice. Otherwise, all the other options, however unpalatable, are on the table. Does she agree, given that the view of this House from out there is not at its highest point right now, that this is an opportunity for the House of Commons to surprise the British public in a good way?

Valerie Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, with which I agree, and for his work as an extraordinary Minister. He has been absolutely fantastic. I have seen him over the past few weeks, and I know how difficult his decision to resign was. I thank him for being such a good Minister. The key thing is that Members have tried to tell the Prime Minister exactly what the House wants and what it has decided on.
If we simply relied on precedent, Mr Speaker, I do not think that either you or I would be standing here as Members of Parliament today. We would have had to have wealth and property, and for women, we might have had to have something else, if that is not too rude.

Sam Gyimah: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and for the points she has made about precedent and about what we do. Does she agree that, even though we have an unwritten constitution in this country, it is constitutional invention that has got us through in times of national emergency? We had a national Government during the two world wars and a full-blown coalition to solve the financial crisis in 2010. Given that the Government do not have a majority and that it is not clear whether there will be a majority for any of the Brexit options, does she agree that what was needed right from the start was that kind of constitutional invention, and that the lack of it has not really helped with the passage of the Government’s withdrawal Bill? We should actually be thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for doing this. We would rather not be here, but we are, and invention is what is needed at this time.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman, another excellent former Minister, and I agree with him. I was sorry to see him leave his position as well; he has been absolutely fantastic.
The point about precedent is really important. None of our rules or procedures is set in aspic. In my working life as a lawyer, I have seen the civil procedure rules turned over. We move forward; we do not look back. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), even “Erskine May” is updated.

George Freeman: Further to the discussion during earlier points of order about whether this is a constitutional outrage, does the hon. Lady agree that since the civil war, this House is always controlled its own time, and that the only reason that the business of the House is normally controlled by the Government is that they have the consent of the majority that they carry and the confidence of the Members who support them? Today, the House is asserting its primacy in controlling the business of the House as it always has done and always will do.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The House is only responding today to what it agreed on Monday. Let us face it: we would not have had the first meaningful vote if the House had not agreed to it, and we had to struggle to get it. Speaking of the meaningful votes, the first was lost by 68% to 32% and the second by 62% to 38%.

Peter Bone: Returning to the business under consideration, there has clearly been a change in the Labour party position. Up until today, we had always thought that if the Labour party did not support the Government’s position and did not think that the House supported the Government position, it would move a motion of no confidence, which is the normal way to proceed. Instead, there is this establishment of an alternative Government. Does that mean that the Labour party will no longer table motions of no confidence?

Valerie Vaz: I think the correct term—I am sure that you will correct the hon. Gentleman, Mr Speaker—is that we are Her Majesty’s Opposition. We are responsible, and we want to try to find a way through, which is what hon. Members on both sides are trying to do.

Wayne David: As we have heard this afternoon, the constitutional implications of what is happening today are profound, and the House will in the not-too-distant future need some mechanism to consider those constitutional implications. However, that should not take away from the fact that we are concerned about the immediate crisis before us. In the interests of pragmatic democracy, it is essential to find a way forward, but we must bear it in mind that we will have to return to these big issues.

Valerie Vaz: I cannot add anything to my hon. Friend’s excellent intervention.

Seema Malhotra: I will support the motion today. I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and I am proud to have worked with them on how to try and move forward. My concern when I first drafted one of the original meaningful vote amendments in December 2017 was that, should the House not agree to a deal, we would need some sort of process or roadmap by which we would then have some chance of moving forward in an orderly fashion. Indeed, the position we are in today is down to a profound lack of leadership from the Prime Minister. She did not involve the House early enough or build a consensus on how to move forward. Instead of the disappointment expressed by the Leader of the House, I am surprised that we did not hear some profound regret that the Prime Minister and the Government had not engaged the House considerably earlier on the negotiating objectives. Instead, they have continued down a track that was clearly going to lead to the same place: defeat every single time.

Valerie Vaz: I agree with everything my hon. Friend says.

Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are in this situation only because we have a Government unable to govern and a Prime Minister unable to listen to the House despite two resounding defeats? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the 30 brave Conservative Members who voted to enable this debate to take place—all under pressure from their Conservative associations—particularly the three Ministers who sacrificed their careers on a point of principle to allow us to have these options today?

Valerie Vaz: I agree. People on both sides who have taken a bold stance have suffered abuse and have been threatened with deselection by their parties, and that is absolutely the wrong way to deal with this.

Richard Harrington: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Valerie Vaz: Yes.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Order. Before the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) intervenes, which he should of course have the opportunity to do, we will take a point of order from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).

Angus MacNeil: Given that there are 16 motions to deal with this afternoon, if a Member was to get up now and ask that question be now put, so that we could increase the time for the motions, how might the Chair react to that question?

John Bercow: There is no need to move the closure because this is a time-limited debate, and the time limit will be well known to the hon. Gentleman. If he can just contain his impatience, there will be salvation at hand in due course.

Charles Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You know that I do not want to try your patience, and I apologise, but given that colleagues will be entirely unfamiliar with the voting process that is going to happen this evening, it would have been useful if the Procedure Committee at least could have had a dummy copy of what was going to be used. We could have been reassured that this was going to be something with which the House could get to grips.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is not merely a distinguished ornament of the Procedure Committee but its illustrious Chair. That is a fact well known to all Members of the House, but it ought to have wider public recognition. The point of order is not a matter for me. However, insofar as there is any concern, the process will be explained at the material time by me from the Chair and, I hope, in a way that will inform and assist all Members.
Will the shadow Leader of the House confirm that she is giving way?

Valerie Vaz: indicated assent.

Richard Harrington: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for accepting my intervention and for your patience, Mr Speaker. Before the point of order, it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) that people such as me who had disobeyed the Whip and resigned may have faced undue pressure from the Whips or our Conservative associations. I did not experience that myself, but some commentators and, indeed, Members of this House have said that voting for the amendment on Monday and supporting this business motion today marks a dangerous revolution or sets a constitutional position of terrible magnitude that could put the country’s future at stake. However, I do not accept that one of my constituents will criticise me for reversing the Order Paper for one, two or three days so that Government business does not have precedence. I refute that assertion and ask the shadow Leader of the House for her views on the subject.

Valerie Vaz: These are unusual times. Nobody asked the then Prime Minister to resign after the referendum vote, but he did nevertheless and a new one had to be found. We are in difficult and unusual times. This is one of the biggest issues of the day, and it will not affect the majority of hon. Members here, but it will affect our children and our grandchildren and future generations.
Let us face it: Europe kept the peace in Europe, where some terrible things had happened. I keep saying that the reason why we have the Human Rights Act is because single human right was breached during the  last war. Europe has moved on from that sort of forum into one whereby we trade with our biggest and nearest partners, and that is why we have a Union that more states want to join. For the sake of future generations, we need to think carefully about what we do today. This is about the will of the House. The House decided that there was a vacuum and the House filled that vacuum. Hon. Members from all sides wanted to move forward constructively, and that why we are in this position today.

Hilary Benn: Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement at the remarks of the Leader of the House, who gave the impression that, somehow, this has been sprung on the Government when they are only too willing to make provision for indicative votes? I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Brexit Committee’s recommendation published on 16 January, after the Government’s deal was first defeated by 230 votes:
“It is vital that the House of Commons is now given the opportunity to identify an option that might secure a majority. We recommend that this is done by holding a series of indicative votes on the options we have set out above as soon as possible.”
Here we are on 27 March, which is going some when it comes to “as soon as possible.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could perfectly easily have acted earlier?

Valerie Vaz: I pay tribute to the work my right hon. Friend has done on a cross-party basis to bring this issue forward. As I say, these are unprecedented times, which is why the House is in this position. We are pleased that the right hon. Member for West Dorset, along with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, has had the courage to table this motion and put us in this position.
We have had to learn from a certain social media platform that there may be a vote on Thursday, or maybe Friday. Is that the way to conduct responsible government? The Opposition would say no. No one from the Government has had the courtesy to come here—I do not know whether they have informed you, Mr Speaker, but they certainly have not informed us—to say what is going to happen with business on Thursday and Friday, yet people outside do know.

Martin Whitfield: I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments on the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about how future generations will look back at this time, and they are going to judge us by events such as we are seeing in this House today. It is important to remember that the House was pushed and pushed before it decided to take these almost unique steps, and it does so with trepidation, but this is a time when something must happen to remove the logjam of a dysfunctional Government.
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the question I asked the right hon. Member for West Dorset. What would look like success in the votes this afternoon? He made a very good point that today is about seeing a larger picture of where the opinion of this House lies. Does my hon. Friend agree that today is about finding that overall picture, and that steps taken on Monday may draw it down to a closer point? That is why I support the business motion.

Valerie Vaz: We are trying to help the Government, which is why we need to support these indicative votes today. We are trying to help the Government find out exactly what hon. Members want and do not want. The Opposition support the motion, and we want to find a way forward.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I oppose this motion because I think that it is constitutionally ill thought through. Our country does not have a codified constitution, but it works on conventions, and those conventions are precious to those in government and to those not in government, for the tables may be turned at some point and the Labour party may find it has a minority Government and cannot keep the business of the House as it would expect.
Why do the Government need this primacy on the business of the House? As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) says, it is absolutely right that the Standing Orders are the property of this House and are not challengeable outside this House, and our governmental system works through the Queen in Parliament. The Queen, in this sense, is represented by the Executive, and there is a separation between the Executive and the legislature that we all know about. That separation requires that the proposition of events comes from the Government and that the amendment, review and redress in relation to those events comes from this House.

Chris Bryant: One of the conventions that has lasted for a very long time is that a parliamentary Session lasts for a year unless a general election intervenes and makes it more sensible for a Session to be 15 months, or something like that. In a parliamentary Session, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Standing Orders provide that there should be so many days set aside as Opposition days. That has been completely broken in this Session, which has gone on for nearly two years. We have not had an Opposition day since November, the longest period in living memory.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I agree that it is important to observe the conventions, because the conventions protect the interests of everybody. If the hon. Gentleman is calling for a Prorogation so we may reset and have Opposition days, I would not be opposed to that. It may well be time for a Prorogation.

Angela Eagle: Another convention that has been broken is that the Government should vote on Opposition days and take notice of motions passed on Opposition days. That convention has been widely disregarded by the Government, who are now refusing to take part in Opposition day votes and are completely ignoring anything but motions that demand to be put into effect. Does the hon. Gentleman agree this is yet another example of an established convention, which I always thought would be properly observed by the Government, being discarded?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The issue is that Opposition days have become much more precise and have used the Humble Address procedure to ensure they are taken  notice of by using a correct constitutional approach that is actually better than mere motions on generally otiose opinions.

Ed Vaizey: I call on my hon. Friend’s constitutional expertise. Is it an established convention or a novel convention for a Minister to propose a motion at the Dispatch Box and then to vote against it? Is it not the case that, in a hung Parliament, we tend to invent new conventions to cope with our novel situation?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: No. I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend is wrong. There is a very strong history of Ministers proposing motions to aid the House, which was certainly done by Jack Straw during the last Labour Government and by the Government headed by David Cameron. When we reach the end of proceedings and the ability to propose a motion rests only with a Minister, the Minister often proposes it to facilitate the House coming to a judgment. That is quite a commonplace thing, as Mr Speaker will know.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I will not give way to everyone because there are only 22 and a half minutes to go, and the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), will want to speak. I must be conscious of the rights of minority parties—another important convention in this House.
Coming to the nub of the issue, taking control of the business away from the Government is a bad precedent because the House is not willing to come to the logical conclusion that today’s proceedings are heading towards. The Government control business as long as, and only if, this House of Commons has confidence in them. My hon. Friends—not the Opposition, who are perfectly reasonable in this regard—should think very carefully about what they are doing, because what they are in fact saying is that they do not have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. If that is what they think, they should vote accordingly. Our great constitutional convention is that these decisions, if they cannot be decided by this House and by the Government who are legitimately installed, go back to the electorate. The reason my right hon. and hon. Friends are not willing to reach that conclusion is that they are going against the electorate’s will, as expressed in our greatest ever referendum.

Nicholas Boles: I always learn from my hon. Friend, but I must disagree with him on this. I am quite capable of distinguishing between my general confidence in the Government, their measures, their Cabinet and their Prime Minister, and their specific conduct on this issue. Furthermore, I point out to him that on that great referendum, which voted to leave the European Union, I have been consistently voting with the Government, in whom I have confidence, and with the Prime Minister, in whom I have confidence, to give effect to that decision, whereas he has been voting against.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically Wykehamist point: highly intelligent but fundamentally wrong. I must confess that I have sometimes thought my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was more a Wykehamist than of my own school,  but we will leave that to one side. The expression of confidence in the Government is through their control of business, not on any individual item of business. That is why confidence and control of business come together. This has been taken away in the past, and my right hon. Friend referred to the assertion of parliamentary authority in the civil war—well, we know how that ended. It ended with Pride’s purge and with people being prevented from voting. The Government, the Executive and the legislature are clean different things. That separation of powers is essential, the conventions of our constitution are essential and it is important that we observe them properly, because the sovereignty of Parliament is not the sovereignty of us, however brilliant we may be, or of the Mace; it is the sovereignty of the British people. They have told us what to do, and we must do it.

Pete Wishart: As always, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). If an example of “taking back control” in a parliamentary party is a spat between him and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on Tudor history, I say we cannot get enough of this.

Michael Gove: Stuart.

Pete Wishart: The Environment Secretary, from a sedentary position, invites me to consider the Stuarts. If he would like to go down that route and find a period in history where the Scots had precedence in terms of how this country was governed, he could not give a better example—I am sure the hon. Member for North East Somerset would agree with that fully.
I like this innovation. It a good, creative way to be looking at how we do our business. It is an example, at last, of this House taking back control. What surprises me more than anything else is that those who called the loudest and gave the biggest clarion calls for this place to take back control are those who have the biggest problem with the House doing that very thing. It is strange to see these Conservative Members—I see them all in their places—getting ready to try to make sure that this motion is defeated and things are once again returned to the hands of the Executive.
I am familiar with the speech made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset, as I have heard it before; he talks about the authority of the Executive over the legislature. In terms of the constitution of this place, he is absolutely right, but we are in totally uncharted territory, and in a hung Parliament, we have to look for these constitutional novelties. This motion should be congratulated. The way that it has been engineered and designed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset is almost elegant in defining its purpose. We have this opportunity to do this. It is one the Government could have given us, but they chose not to and so to complain about the fact that it has been made up to the House to do this is churlish.
Talking of churlishness, I have to say to the Leader of the House that I found her speech in response to this petulant and irritable. She was totally ungracious about the way this House has decided to do its business—it is what the House has decided. I find it astonishing that  this Government are going to vote against this business motion, as they had an opportunity to table an amendment. I cannot understand why they chose not to do so.

Philippa Whitford: My hon. Friend says that it is great that the House is doing this now, but should it not have been done about two years ago, after the Prime Minister said she would consult across the House and across the UK to agree a plan before going to Europe? She did exactly the opposite.

Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and of course what she says is the case. The Government had the opportunities to reach out to try to determine how this House wanted to progress this whole issue of Brexit, but they chose not to do that. They have spent the past two years talking to themselves, trying to persuade recalcitrant Back Benchers to back a deal that they no longer favour. They are talking to the Democratic Unionist party, at great expense, to ensure that they can secure that party’s support. We have had two wasted years, and it is therefore right that this House does take back control and presents the motion before us today.

Sam Gyimah: I understand the concerns that some colleagues have raised about the precedent here, with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) asking what would happen if the tables were turned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the genie is out of the bottle and so that is not a reason not to pursue this course of action by voting for this business motion?

Pete Wishart: The tables being turned does not really concern Scottish National party Members, as it is unlikely that we will ever have the opportunity to have this done to us. The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect: this Parliament has changed the way we have done our business. The last change to the Standing Orders—I am sure I am right on this, but the hon. Member for North East Somerset will correct me if I am wrong—was when we introduced English votes for English laws. That is the last time the Standing Orders of this House were changed, much to the detriment of Scottish Members, who all of a sudden found themselves being a different class of Member of this House from other Members across the House. So the Standing Orders are within the gift of Parliament and if it decides to change them, that will be a matter for us. We will determine that in a motion presented to this House.

Seema Malhotra: The discussion about precedent is one we may look back on in due course and ask whether we could have done anything differently. Is it not true that on this issue, which is of such national importance, and where the divisions and the unities go across party boundaries, we are dealing with an unprecedented way in which the country, which has also been kept out of this debate over the past two or three years, is now calling out for Parliament to find a way forward? Is it not also true that the Government ceded control on Monday when they still had an opportunity to bring forward a pathway and process by which the voice of this House could be heard?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the sequence of events, as this was determined and decided on Monday night. She is right in another respect. I am sure that she, like me, has been having lots of new constituents getting in touch with her, totally aghast at what we are doing in this House and at the fact that such a mess has been made of all this. They are looking at us today, as we take control of this House, to see whether we can do a better job. We cannot do a worse job than this Government have done, that is for sure.
The right hon. Member for West Dorset is not just a putative Prime Minister; he is almost a one-man Government. I was enjoying his contribution until about the 20th to 25th minute of it. I suggest that if we are going to progress this and develop it as an idea, we would do this a bit differently, perhaps with a little more style and panache than we have seen from the Government. I hope that that will be the case.

Patrick Grady: I am surprised that there has not been more objection to the other innovation taking place, which is that we are going to cast our votes using bits of paper. Some might want to use vellum or quill and ink. If Mr Speaker were to choose all the amendments, that could result in about four hours of voting. So perhaps the real innovation that comes from today is a modernisation of our voting systems, too.

Pete Wishart: That is one fantastic precedent that the right hon. Member for West Dorset has already put in place. We are getting towards electronic voting. For the first time in my 18 years in this House, we will actually be able to vote in a sensible, constructive manner and not waste hours and hours in the Division Lobby when nothing further can be done. I can see you looking at me with an encouragement to conclude my remarks, Mr Speaker, and I will do so with this. I listened carefully, keenly and attentively to the Leader of the House on the radio this morning, as I always do, and I got the impression that this Government are not in the least bit interested in what this House passes today in its indicative votes. I have no reason to be believe, for one minute, that they are not going to totally reject, contemptuously, as is now traditional, what this House decides.

Jim Cunningham: To come back to the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), I have reflected on this situation over the past two or three years, and I find it incredible. One would have thought logic would have told the Prime Minister, before she activated article 50, to get all the interested parties together to find a way forward. Now, two years down the road, the Government still do not have a plan B. It is incredible, to say the least.

Pete Wishart: I describe the Government’s approach to Brexit as chaotic and clueless, and nothing will ever distract me from that principle when it comes to the way they have prosecuted this Brexit, which has been such an utter disaster.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if by some stroke of luck  this House were to come to a conclusion tonight or on Monday on a way forward that was totally contrary to the manifesto that the Government stood on, no Government would wish to negotiate a deal that was contrary to the programme they stood on in the first place?

Pete Wishart: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is really keeping up with what is happening today with this innovation in which the House determines the process and decides. That should be done without any undue concern for what has been said and done before. For goodness’ sake, this is our chance. This is our moment to make sure that we ensure a decisive outcome, which the Government should respect. I really hope that the Leader of the House reconsiders her approach to the indicative votes. I encourage the right hon. Member for West Dorset to continue his approach to coming to a solution that clearly demonstrates the will of the House. At that point, the Government must accept the will of the House.
This is a good day for Parliament and for this House. We cannot make a worse job of it than the Government already have. I hope that they listen carefully to what is said today. The SNP will support the motion.

Jonathan Djanogly: As I see it, the Government position has two clear tracks: the first is that this business of the House process is somehow unconstitutional, and the second is that even if it is constitutional, it is somehow hijacking the agenda.
Let me take the first element. From the perspective of historical precedent, I suggest that the Government are simply wrong. Early in the last century, it would have been absolutely normal and acceptable procedure for legislators to bring forward Bills. Indeed, in the United States legislators constantly introduce Bills in both Houses of Congress. The reason they do that, by the way, is that they got it from us.
Let me move forward to today. There is also clear constitutional precedent for Parliament setting the agenda: they are called private Members’ Bills days. We also have Backbench Business days, which are essentially Back-Bench initiatives to take over the agenda. If we can allow it for such business, how much more should we be prepared to allow it when the House is deadlocked and the Government are not setting out plan B on the most important issue to face this country since the second world war?
As for the second element—that we are somehow hijacking the agenda—I refute that absolutely. Nothing is stopping the Government using all days except these two sitting days to set out their own agenda and put forward their own proposals. To claim that taking two days is somehow hijacking the agenda is simply a weak excuse, in my book. This motion represents a parallel process, aimed at breaking the deadlock that exists. I sincerely congratulate all Members who have been involved in setting today’s business and promoting an attempt to try to find a way forward.

George Freeman: Although it may be a few years before the House thanks him, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is doing  this House, democracy, the Government—although I do not think they see it yet—and Brexit a favour, by helping us to reach a resolution. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are three dangerous canards in the House this afternoon: first, that this sets a dangerous precedent, but the House has always controlled its own time; secondly, that this is a remainer conspiracy, but all of us who signed up to this support the Government’s Bill and want to get it through; and thirdly, that we are tying the Government’s hands, but these are merely indicative votes to give those on the Front Bench some help to see where there might be consensus on a plan B if, heaven forbid, we need it?

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend has read my mind. I was going to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on his remarkable achievement in getting us here today. I, too, supported the Government on both material votes, and if the Government bring the deal back, I will support them again, but I will not stand back and watch our country fall off a cliff into the abyss.

Wes Streeting: There is one reason and one reason alone why we are debating this business of the House motion, and that is the vacuum created by the Government through their total lack of leadership in this process. There was a very simple way for the Government to defeat the proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but the Government, who were given the opportunity again and again to set out their own path and their own plan for indicative votes, rejected it at every single point.

Vicky Ford: I find the rewriting of history rather bizarre. On Monday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether the Government would provide their own pathway towards indicative votes this week, and he said yes. That is the basis on which I said it would be better to have the indicative votes led by the Government, which is the best way forward. If we are to hear the voice of this House, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good if we got to vote on all the suggested options, not just some of them?

Wes Streeting: The selection is a matter for the Speaker, as the hon. Lady knows. To be clear, she is right to say that the Government said they would lay out their own path, but when they were asked, by Member after Member, on what day, for how long and on what basis, there was not a single response. The heart of the problem is the Government’s making it up as they go along.
The Government have to decide which charge they are laying at the feet of the House: either this is a remainer Parliament trying to overturn the will of the people, as the Prime Minister has claimed again and again, particularly with her incendiary statement last week, or, more accurately, this is a Parliament in which the vast majority of Members who voted remain also voted to trigger article 50, as I did, in the trust and understanding that we would have a Government who would competently manage the negotiations and reach  out across the House and try to build consensus among Members of Parliament and, most importantly, the electorate.

Ian Murray: The nub of this issue is that this entire Parliament has lost trust in the Government, which is why we do not trust them when they say they will bring back motions for debate. Is not the crux of this issue that had the Government wanted to prevent any kind of historical precedent for Parliament taking control of the Order Paper, all they had to do on Monday night was simply accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)?

Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree.
With the limited time I have, I wish to say something about the trust that the public have in us as Members of Parliament and in the House of Commons. It is difficult, particularly when the country voted one way and some of us, myself included, voted a different way. It has been a difficult process trying to navigate our way through something that is completely unprecedented in the history of our country—trying to remove ourselves from the most sophisticated political and economic alliance the world has ever seen. It took seven years to organise a two-week sporting event, the London Olympics; it is not necessarily surprising that it has taken more than two years for us to try to negotiate our way out of the European Union.
What is completely unforgivable is the way the Government have botched the negotiations at every turn and failed to try to achieve consensus. At every single stage, when amendments have been tabled, whether on the single market or the customs union, or on different negotiating priorities and different principles, the Prime Minister has said, “It’s my way or the highway.” That is why we are in the bind we are in now. Whatever our particular views on the referendum, we all have a responsibility to try to break the deadlock, which is what the right hon. Member for West Dorset is trying to achieve—to test the will of the House to see whether there is some way to achieve consensus and to try to find a way through this damaging and unprecedented period of our history. That is the responsibility that now rests on our shoulders. All of us, when we go through the Division Lobby imminently, have a responsibility to show our country that Parliament is taking control of the process, and that we are determined, as Members of Parliament, to act in the interests of our constituencies and our countries at every point.
Whether we voted leave or remain, and whichever options we choose to vote for, we do so for one reason and one reason alone: the furtherance of our national interest—defending the jobs, livelihoods, hopes and prospects of the people who send us here. Whatever our differences, I think that this House is full of people with honour and integrity. We have the opportunity in the coming days and weeks to show that to be true.
The Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Resolution, 25 March).
The House proceeded to a Division.

John Bercow: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 331, Noes 287.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
(1) That, at today’s sitting –
(a) any proceedings governed by the resolution of the House of 25 March (Section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) or this order may be proceeded withuntil any hour, though opposed and shall not be interrupted;
(b) the resolution of the House of 25 March shall apply as if, at the end of paragraph(b), there were inserted “and then to a motion in the name of a Minister of the Crownto approve the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment)Regulations 2019”;
(c) notwithstanding the practice of the House, any motion on matters that have beenthe subject of a prior decision of the House in the current Session may be the subjectof a decision;
(d) the Speaker shall announce his decision on which motions have been selectedfor decision by recorded vote before calling a Member to move a motion underparagraph (f) of the resolution of 25 March;
(e) the first signatory of a motion so selected may inform the Speaker up to 4.00 pmthat they do not wish a recorded vote to take place on that motion;
(f) having been so informed, the Speaker shall announce that information to theHouse and may announce a new decision on selection;
(g) the Speaker may not propose the question on any amendment to any motionsubject to decision by recorded vote or on the previous question, and may   not put anyquestion under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(h) debate on the motions having precedence under paragraph (f) of the resolutionof 25 March may continue until 7.00 pm at which time the House shall proceed asif the question had been put on each motion selected by the Speaker for decisionby recorded vote and the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on each suchquestion had been challenged;
(i) in respect of those questions –
(i) Members may record their votes on each question under arrangementsmade by the Speaker;
(ii) votes may be recorded for half an hour after the Speaker declares theperiod open and the Speaker shall suspend the House for that period;
(iii) the Speaker shall announce the results in the course of the sitting;
(j) immediately upon the conclusion of the voting period the Speaker shall call a Minister of the Crown to move to approve the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to that motion;
(k) during the period between 7.00 pm and the announcement of the results on the questions subject to recorded vote–
(i) no motion for the adjournment may be made;
(ii) the House shall not proceed to a division other than on the question referred to in sub-paragraph (j); and
(iii) the Speaker may suspend the sitting if any other business, including proceedings provided for in sub-paragraph (j) and in paragraph (g) of the resolution of 25 March, has been concluded.
(2) That, on Monday 1 April –
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;
(b) precedence shall be given to a motion relating to the Business of the House in connection with matters relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union other than any Business of the House motion relating to the consideration by the House of a motion under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and then to motions relating to that withdrawal and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union other than any motion moved under section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
(c) if more than one motion relating to the Business of the House is tabled, the Speaker shall decide which motion shall have precedence;
(d) the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings on any business having precedence before the Business of the House motion at 5.00 pm and call a Member to move that motion;
(e) debate on that motion may continue until 6.00 pm at which time the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on that motion including the questions on amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;
(f) when those proceedings have been concluded, the Speaker shall call a Member to move one of the other motions having precedence;
(g) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.

EU: WITHDRAWAL AND FUTURE RELATIONSHIP (MOTIONS)

John Bercow: We now come to the motions relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from and future relationship with the European Union. I inform the House that I have selected the following motions for decision by recorded vote: motion (B), in the name of Mr John Baron; motion (D), in the name of Mr Nicholas Boles; motion (H), in the name of Mr George Eustice; motion (J), in the name of Mr Kenneth Clarke; motion (K), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition; motion (L), in the name of Joanna Cherry; motion (M), in the name of Dame Margaret Beckett; and motion (O), in the name of Mr Marcus Fysh.
I shall, ere long, call John Baron to open the debate—[Interruption] No, he does not need to be unduly concerned. He will do so by moving his motion (B), with which it will be convenient to debate all other selected motions on the Order Paper. Debate may continue until 7 pm.
The first signatory of each of these motions has until 4 pm to inform me that they do not wish a recorded vote to take place on their motion. Shortly after 4 pm, I will confirm, on the strength of the intelligence I have received, my selection of motions. At that point, colleagues, voting forms will be printed. They will be available from the Vote Office and in the Division Lobbies from approximately 6.30 pm. An announcement will be made on the Annunciator when they are available. The forms will look very similar to deferred Division forms except that they will be green, and they will list the title and letter of the selected motions. The text of the motions is in the Order Paper. Moreover, I hope it will be judged to be for the convenience of the House, and it has been requested of me, that large numbers of copies of the Order Paper will be available in the Division Lobbies.
The voting period is expected to start shortly after 7 pm and will last for half an hour. During that time, I will suspend the House. The Annunciator will display the end time of the voting period. Members with surnames from A to K should hand in their forms in the Aye Lobby, at the relevant desk for their surname, and Members with surnames from L to Z should hand in their forms in the No Lobby, at the relevant desk. As with deferred Divisions, Members may not vote Aye and No to the same motion.

Mark Francois: Unless they’re in the Cabinet. [Laughter.]

John Bercow: I shall not respond to that disorderly heckle.
However, if that were to happen—what I have just counselled should not—the vote would not be counted. As with deferred Divisions, Members may not hand in forms on behalf of other Members. Each Member must hand in his or her own form. Members with proxy votes in operation will need to get their nominated proxy to hand in their form. A short note is being made available in the Vote Office confirming these arrangements.
I will announce the results in the Chamber as soon as they are ready, which will certainly not be before the conclusion of proceedings on the statutory instrument relating to exit day. The results of the votes will be  published in the same way as deferred Divisions: on the CommonsVotes website and app, and in Hansard, showing how each hon. Member voted on each motion.
Colleagues, last Monday—18 March—I made a statement to the House explaining the standard which would have to be reached for me to allow another so-called meaningful vote under the statutory framework provided in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I cited page 387 of “Erskine May” and concluded that a proposition which is the same, or substantially the same, may not be brought forward again during the same parliamentary Session. This Monday—25 March—in the course of answering questions following her statement, the Prime Minister accepted this constraint, saying:
“I am very clear about the strictures that Mr Speaker gave when he made his statement last week, and were we to bring forward a further motion to this House, we would of course ensure that it met the requirements he made.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 32.]
I understand that the Government may be thinking of bringing meaningful vote 3 before the House either tomorrow, or even on Friday, if the House opts to sit that day. Therefore, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to make it clear that I do expect the Government to meet the test of change. They should not seek to circumvent my ruling by means of tabling either a “notwithstanding” motion or a paving motion. The Table Office has been instructed that no such motions will be accepted.
I very much look forward, colleagues, to today’s debate and votes, which give the House the chance to start the process of positively indicating what it wants. To move the first motion, I call the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).

John Baron: I beg to move motion (B),
That this House agrees that the UK shall leave the EU on 12 April 2019 without a deal.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
Motion (D)—Common market 2.0—
That this House—
(1) directs Her Majesty’s Government to— renegotiate the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 11 March 2019 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’ to provide that, on the conclusion of the Implementation Period and no later than 31 December 2020, the United Kingdom shall—
(a) accede to the European Free Trade Association (Efta) having negotiated a derogation from Article 56(3) of the Efta Agreement to allow UK participation in a comprehensive customs arrangement with the European Union,
(b) enter the Efta Pillar of the European Economic Area and thereby render operational the United Kingdom’s continuing status as a party to the European Economic Area Agreement and continuing participation in the Single Market,
(c) enter a comprehensive customs arrangement including a common external tariff at least until alternative arrangements that maintain frictionless trade with the European Union and no hard border on the island of Ireland have been agreed with the European Union,
(d) conclude an agreement with the European Union, which in accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Withdrawal Agreement supersedes the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in full;
(e) develop and bring to this House proposals for full and fair enforcement of the rule that EEA migrants must be “genuinely seeking work” and have “sufficient resources not to become a burden on the UK’s social assistance system”, in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006;
(2) resolves to make support for the forthcoming European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill conditional upon the inclusion of provisions for a Political Declaration revised in accordance with the provisions of this motion to be the legally binding negotiating mandate for Her Majesty’s Government in the forthcoming negotiation of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Motion (H)—EFTA and EEA—
That this House recognises the democratic duty of Parliament to respect the result of the 2016 referendum whilst securing an orderly departure from the EU that preserves the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; notes that the UK is a signatory to the treaty establishing the European Economic Area and has not given notice to leave the EEA as is required under Article 127 of that agreement; further notes that the UK was a founding member of the European Free Trade Association in 1960 and therefore call on the Government to (a) assert its existing rights as a signatory to the EEA, (b) take necessary steps to make our rights and obligations as an EEA member operable on an emergency basis through the domestic courts, (c) apply to re-join EFTA at the earliest opportunity to make the EEA agreement operable on a sustainable basis and (d) decline to enter a customs union with the EU but seek agreement on new protocols relating to the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade.
Motion (J)—Customs union—
That this House instructs the Government to:
(1) ensure that any Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated with the EU must include, as a minimum, a commitment to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU;
(2) enshrine this objective in primary legislation.
Motion (K)—Labour’s alternative plan—
That this House requires Ministers to:
(a) negotiate changes to the draft Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration so as to secure:
(i) a permanent customs union with the EU;
(ii) close alignment with the single market underpinned by shared institutions and obligations;
(iii) dynamic alignment on rights and protections;
(iv) commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in areas such as the environment, education, and industrial regulation;
(v) agreement on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and vital shared databases; and
(b) introduce primary legislation to give statutory status to the objectives set out in paragraph (a).
Motion (L)—Revocation to avoid no deal—
If, on the day before the end of the penultimate House of Commons sitting day before exit day, no Act of Parliament has been passed for the purposes of section 13(1)(d) of the Withdrawal Act, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately put a motion to the House asking it to approve ‘No Deal’ and, if the House does not give its approval, Her Majesty’s Government must ensure that the notice given to the European Council under   Article 50, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union, is revoked in accordance with United Kingdom and European Union law.
Motion (M)—Confirmatory public vote—
That this House will not allow in this Parliament the implementation and ratification of any withdrawal agreement and any framework for the future relationship unless and until they have been approved by the people of the United Kingdom in a confirmatory public vote.
Motion (O)—Contingent preferential arrangements—
That this House directs that in case the UK is unable to implement a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to agree immediately and preferentially with the EU:
(a) a trade agreement and/or joint notification of trade preference covering 100 per cent of goods traded between the UK and EU under which no tariffs or quantitative restrictions will be applied between the parties and full cumulation of rules of origin which shall apply for a period of up to two years after the UK leaves the EU notwithstanding that these arrangements may be superseded or extended by further mutual agreement;
(b) a standstill period of mutual recognition of standards and conformity assessment for up to two years in which the UK will ensure compliance in the UK with the EU legislative acquis as adopted in Retained EU law under the EU Withdrawal Act on the day the UK leaves the EU notwithstanding that these arrangements may be superseded or extended by further mutual agreement;
(c) a customs arrangement consisting of advanced trade facilitation measures that enables and makes full and widespread use of simplified and subsidised procedures to perform customs and regulatory declarations and associated control processes away from UK/EU borders; and
(d) make provision for the payment of sums to the European Union in amounts equivalent to the UK’s current net annual financial contribution to the EU for up to two years in respect of the above agreements and arrangements.

John Baron: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for choosing this motion.
I refer right hon. and hon. Members to motion (B)—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I should be most grateful if—

Bob Seely: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: No, no—I have already called the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and he has started to speak. In any case, I am on my feet, so the hon. Gentleman should not rise to his feet while I am on mine. Somebody as concerned with procedure as the hon. Gentleman might usefully become acquainted with that important procedural fact.
I was just going to appeal to colleagues—and I think the intervention has helped me to do so—to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly so that we can proceed with the debate and each contributor enjoys the respectful attention of the House which he or she deserves.

John Baron: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Just so that the House is absolutely clear, my motion (B) reads:
That this House agrees that the UK shall leave the EU on 12 April 2019 without a deal.
May I suggest to the House that, as we stand at this point in time, this is, in law, the default position of triggering article 50? We all knew, those of us who were here and voted for it in February 2017, what we were  voting for: the motion simply said that we would leave the EU on 29 March with or without a deal, and we passed it by 384 votes.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Baron: I will in a second—I am going to make some progress first.
Although article 50 can be extended—I voted against that—we should still, as a House, reflect on that vote and recognise that, while most of us in this place want a good deal, many of us have taken the view that the deal on offer from the Prime Minister is not a good deal, and therefore the legal default position is that we leave on no deal/World Trade Organisation terms.

Chris Philp: May I ask a clarifying question about the meaning of motion (B)? Does my hon. Friend mean to say that, even if a deal is agreed before 12 April, we should still seek to leave without a deal?

John Baron: My hon. Friend is right to seek clarification. The answer is no—my preference, as I have stated, is that we leave with a deal, with the backstop duly amended, so that we could not as a country be caught in it indefinitely. That would be my preference, and then this motion would no longer apply. The date is set in the motion because, as he will know, that is the date given by the EU if there is no agreement.
I remind Members that, while most of us in this place prefer a good deal to no deal, no deal is still preferable to a bad deal. We are left in a position where it looks as though the Prime Minister’s deal, unless there is a major shift in this place, is not going to pass—I do not think it will come back, but even if it does, I do not think it will pass. The default position is that we are leaving on WTO terms and I remind the House that, despite all the predictions of doom and gloom, we trade profitably on WTO terms, with the majority of the world’s GDP outside the EU. We have been assured on several occasions by Ministers and, indeed, by the Prime Minister that we are prepared for a no-deal exit.

Sylvia Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Let me take a moment to remind the House and in particular the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland has not had a Government since January 2017. We have no Ministers in Northern Ireland. The head of the Northern Ireland civil service has warned as recently as the beginning of this month of the “grave” consequences for Northern Ireland if we were to leave without a deal. Does the hon. Gentleman have any respect at all for the head of the civil service in Northern Ireland or indeed for the people of Northern Ireland?

John Bercow: Before the hon. Gentleman responds, it might be helpful to the House if I explain that no fewer than 47 Members are seeking to contribute to the debate from the Back Benches, plus three Front Benchers, with a very constrained timetable. Speeches of more than about five minutes will render it impossible for everybody else. The hon. Gentleman did not know that when I called him, although he could have reckoned with the likelihood of substantial demand. Economy is of the essence.

John Baron: I will respond to the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), if I may, and then move on. I have great respect for the people of Northern Ireland. Having served there in the 1980s and got the medals to prove it, I take into account what the people of Northern Ireland, as part of our Union, have to say. At the same time, we are part of a United Kingdom, and there are predictions on both sides of this discussion as to possible outcomes. The Taoiseach has just suggested that we do not need a hard border to solve what has become known as the Northern Ireland backstop problem. There are differences of opinion and we need to recognise that in this debate. I will take note of your stricture, Mr Speaker, and make haste in my remaining comments.
We have been assured by Ministers time and again, in Committees and on the Floor of the House, that we are prepared for no deal. We have spent billions on no deal; £4.2 billion seems to be the current figure. When I posed the Prime Minister a very simple question in the Chamber on 12 February—“Are we going to be prepared?”—she answered in three words: “We are indeed.”

Oliver Letwin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Baron: I will not.
I have to take at face value those reassurances by Ministers that we are indeed prepared for no deal. There is a prevalent argument that no deal would lead to disaster not only in this place but outside it. I respectfully point out that the people making that argument are often the very same ones who predicted doom and gloom in 2016; they said that would be the result if we voted to leave. Some of the predictions were so dire that they were beyond credibility. We had predictions that 500,000 extra people would be unemployed by December 2016 if we voted to leave; some estimates put it up to 700,000. We had predictions of self-made recessions. We even had predictions of conflict on the continent of Europe. They were all proved wrong. The Bank of England—for the first time in its history, to my knowledge—had to publicly apologise for getting it so badly wrong.
What has happened since then? We have had record low unemployment, record high manufacturing output and record investment, and those decisions in the last two or three years have been made in the full knowledge that we could be leaving the EU with no deal and on WTO terms. I gently remind Members that investment is about comparative advantage. It is about such factors as, what is our corporation tax rate compared with other countries? How flexible is our labour market? What about our top universities? What about our financial expertise? In total, those are of greater influence when it comes to investment than 3% to 7% WTO tariffs. I ask the House to reflect on that, because there are too many wild predictions flying around this place, when the discussion should be based on economic reality.
I would go one stage further. If we introduce a fair and controlled immigration policy, wages will rise faster in this country than if that immigration policy were not in place. That is what Lord Rose, who was leader of the remain campaign leading up to the referendum, said in front of the Treasury Committee. Scare stories that we are all heading for doom and gloom and that goods will no longer traverse customs unions and trading blocs  around the world, which they already do, are very wide of the mark. Let us base this discussion and the votes tonight on economic reality. Much as a few Opposition Members—particularly the SNP—do not like to admit it, we are doing rather well economically, and as I said, those decisions have been based on the possibility of us leaving on no-deal terms.
Given your guidance on timings, Mr Speaker, I will bring my comments to a close. I appeal to the House for rational consideration with regard to no deal. There are a lot of scare stories out there, but this is a repeat of 2016. Those scare stories were wrong then and they are wrong now. Let us have a note of optimism about the future of this country and the capability of this country, and let us back this country. If we cannot get a good deal, let us get back to economic reality and realise that we already trade profitably with the majority of the world’s GDP outside the EU on WTO terms, and there is no reason why we cannot trade with the EU on such terms. I recommend that the House support motion (B).

John Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman has completed his oration in a timely way, we now proceed to the next contributor to the debate, and I am proposing what might be called an indicative time limit of five minutes.

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for his great work in making today’s proceedings possible. I rise to speak in support of motion (D) in my name and those of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and other hon. Members.
This really is five minutes to midnight—for this Parliament, for this Government and for our country—and we desperately need to find a way out of this mess. Our country has spent two years tied up in knots by the Prime Minister’s incompatible red lines, which offered such a narrow interpretation of the referendum result. A 52% to 48% vote was certainly not an instruction for a disastrous no deal or for a hard, Canada-style, job-destroying Brexit. It was an instruction to move house, but to stay in the same neighbourhood.
The European Free Trade Association/European economic area model offers just such a possibility. It respects the referendum result without wrecking the British economy. Not convinced? Well, it is worth remembering what Nigel Farage told a “Question Time” audience in 2016:
“I hear people say ‘Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were like Norway and Switzerland?’ Really? They are rich, they’re happy and they’re self-governing countries.”
The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), a passionate Brexiteer, told us in 2015 that
“only a madman would leave the market”,
and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has also been supportive of the single market in the past. The point I am making is that, in 2016, Euroscepticism meant something that it apparently no longer means today.

Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Kinnock: I am sorry, but Mr Speaker has said we have very little time, so I am afraid I will not be able to take any interventions.
Today, Euroscepticism seems to mean setting off into the Brexit fantasy forest of unicorns and rainbows, yet in 2016 Euroscepticism meant simply being opposed to political integration, while cheerleading for the single market. That, in a nutshell, is what common market 2.0 is all about.
What does common market 2.0 require? First, it requires only a renegotiation of the short political declaration on the future relationship, which the EU has consistently told us it is open to amending. The reason why Labour politicians such as me have rejected the Prime Minister’s deal is the political declaration, not the withdrawal agreement. That is because the political declaration offers no long-term guarantee on workers’ rights and does nothing for the services sector, which is 80% of our economy. It is membership of the single market that delivers for workers’ rights and for the services sector. That point was made explicitly by Frances O’Grady of the Trades Union Congress just this morning, and also this morning by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which was absolutely clear—it did not mince its words—that a customs union alone will not deliver on workers’ rights or on frictionless trade at our borders. Trade unions and business voices came together to make it abundantly clear that we need single market membership.
Under common market 2.0, we would maintain full participation in the single market through our membership of the European economic area by joining the EEA’s only non-EU pillar, the European Free Trade Association. We would add to this a comprehensive customs arrangement with the EU, at least until alternative arrangements to secure frictionless trade on the Irish border can be agreed via other means—for instance, new technology. The EU has indicated that this bespoke combination is available for the UK, given the need to preserve the Good Friday agreement.
A major strength of common market 2.0 is that it is by far the fastest viable route to Brexit. We could be in the EFTA pillar by the summer, and in a customs arrangement well before December 2020, removing almost all the risks of the unpopular backstop ever coming into play—unpopular particularly with some Members across on the Conservative side of the House.
There are very clear benefits to common market 2.0, not least that it delivers on what the majority of the British public actually want from Brexit. On the doorsteps in my Aberavon constituency and in those of my colleagues, we hear the same message time and again from our voters, particularly older voters: “We voted for a Common Market; we did not vote for all the political stuff”. Common market 2.0 continues our close economic relationship, but we would leave the EU’s political institutions, leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, leave the common agricultural and fisheries policies, and leave the EU’s drive towards ever closer political union.
We would see a marked improvement in our position on freedom of movement through the safeguard measures written into article 112 of the EEA agreement. These safeguards would give the UK a qualified but unilateral treaty-based right to suspend—

Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as he did name me?

Stephen Kinnock: I am sorry, but Mr Speaker has said that we do not have time for interventions.

Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman named me and I think it is a convention that the named Member can answer back. He used a quote from a television programme—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot make his point via a point of order. What he describes is customary, but not obligatory. It is not for me to say that people can or cannot intervene and I am not seeking to do so. I am just reminding the House of the time constraints under which we operate.

Stephen Kinnock: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The safeguards give countries a qualified but unilateral treaty-based right to suspend freedom of movement if a country believes that it is suffering
“serious societal or economic difficulties.”
The measures in essence reflect what David Cameron tried but failed miserably to negotiate with the EU before the 2016 referendum. They would end the seemingly limitless nature of EU migration that concerns many voters.
It is often said that the UK would become a rule taker, but that is a ludicrously simplistic view. Under the terms of common market 2.0, the UK would leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and therefore end the principle of direct effect. That is because the EFTA Court that the UK would join respects national sovereignty in a way that the ECJ does not. New laws have to be approved by each nation and their national Parliament. It is also worth noting that we would have one in four EFTA Court judges rather than one in 28 EU judges, and that only one third of EU law applies to the EEA anyway.
We would restore policy-making powers in vast areas, including agriculture, fisheries, foreign affairs, security, justice and home affairs, and taxation. Although the EFTA states take on most single market rules, it is worth remembering that they enjoy the option to delay, adapt or derogate from any single market law or directive. Any decision to incorporate law must be unanimous, so that would give us not a vote in the EU process—because of course we are leaving the institutions—but a veto at national level. Norway and Iceland have derogated from EU law on more than 400 occasions.
The Norwegian Prime Minister has made it clear that her country is ready to facilitate our joining the EEA via the EFTA pillar. Michel Barnier has always said that a so-called Norway plus deal would work and that it had not been considered only because of the Prime Minister’s red lines.
Our common market 2.0 motion brings together leavers and remainers and three different parties. That breadth of support is extraordinary and unique. I am not sure that any other option has that spread of remain and leave opinion—certainly not revocation, a no-deal Brexit or a confirmatory vote. We need to find a way that not just unites the House on a solution that will get us out of the constitutional and political crisis, but begins to reunite our deeply divided country. It is time for British politics to rediscover the lost art of  compromise. It is time for the House to support motion (D), and I genuinely hope that Members of all parties will join me in the Lobby to do so.

Nicholas Boles: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) in proposing motion (D). I, too, want to make the case for compromise, not as something cowardly but as something courageous. In a divided country and a divided Parliament, finding and sustaining a compromise that most people can support is a noble endeavour. After years of paralysing conflict, we have a moral duty to open our minds this afternoon and reach for a compromise that will allow us to put the interminable Brexit row behind us.
The great strength of the common market 2.0 proposal, relative to all other Brexit compromises, is that it offers something important and valuable to everyone and every party in this House. For Labour Members, it offers the strong position in the single market that, as Frances O’Grady has affirmed, is vital for workers’ rights. For SNP Members, common market 2.0 preserves the principle of free movement of labour, which they tell me is essential to Scotland’s future economic prosperity and social cohesion. For those in other parts of the UK, worried about the possibility of another massive influx of European migrants such as the one we experienced after Poland and Hungary joined the EU in 2004, it offers an emergency brake, which could be deployed as a temporary safeguard in the regions affected.
For my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, common market 2.0 offers the prospect of being able to benefit from the free trade agreements struck by the European Free Trade Association, or to do our own trade deals once alternative arrangements to maintain no hard border on the island of Ireland have been agreed with the EU.

Steve Brine: My rule today is to support only suggestions that are realistic and deliverable, and I think that what my hon. Friend is presenting, and what I have read about it, ticks both boxes. Will he confirm that common market 2.0 would not require Northern Ireland to accept different rules from the rest of the UK? That is the stumbling block that has held us in this purgatory for so long.

Nicholas Boles: My hon. Friend did a heroic thing earlier this week, for which I salute him, and I am grateful to him for literally leading me to my next point. For our allies in the DUP, common market 2.0 removes any threat to the Union, because it keeps every part of the United Kingdom inside the single market and a comprehensive customs arrangement that delivers frictionless trade.
For right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies and coastal communities around the UK, common market 2.0 guarantees our exit from the EU’s common fisheries policy and our rebirth as an independent coastal state.

Chris Philp: Will my hon. Friend confirm that common market 2.0 would entail continuing to follow single market rules with no say—the Bank of England has advised against that—and that unlimited free movement  would continue, with only a limited and temporary possibility of restricting it, and that according to the House of Commons Library, financial contributions would continue at about half their current rate?

Nicholas Boles: I am happy to confirm some of what my hon. Friend says but not the first point about not having a say over the rules. Members of the European economic area follow an absolutely crucial process under the EEA Joint Committee, to which all new rules passed under single market legislation are referred, and they have a right of reservation, which means that the postal directive, for instance, has never been implemented by Norway, because it does not like it and just says no. That right would extend to us if we were to join.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, even under World Trade Organisation rules, every single UK exporter to the EU will still have to comply with all EU rules and regulations? Once a country leaves the EU, there is no way it can somehow remain a rule maker within it.

Nicholas Boles: Of course that is right; my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is also the case that almost every single producer in this country is hardly going to have to follow one set of rules just for their UK sales and another set of rules for their European sales. They will have one standard set of rules and they will probably follow the European ones.

Oliver Letwin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Robert Halfon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nicholas Boles: I give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin).

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is making a very good case in addition to that made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who first spoke to the motion. Will my hon. Friend emphasise that more than two thirds of the entirety of directives that currently apply to us as EU members will cease to apply because we will only be in the single market and not the rest of the institutions?

Nicholas Boles: That is exactly right. Under common market 2.0, the EEA and EFTA, only single market legislation would be relevant to us; we would be free of all of the rest. It is very important to understand that, even by 2011, Norway and Iceland between them had not implemented 300 legislative acts under single market legislation. They simply said no to those acts of legislation.
I will now give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend has answered my question.

Nicholas Boles: That gives me more pleasure than you could believe possible.
For all of us in this House who care deeply about the security of our fellow citizens, but perhaps in particular for my good friend the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), common market 2.0 would offer unfettered access to the databases and information-sharing programmes of the EU. That is only available to countries that are members of the EU or of EFTA.

Liz Kendall: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, under common market 2.0, there would be a temporary or permanent customs union?

Nicholas Boles: My hon. Friend, as ever, puts her finger on the nerve, shall we say. There are different views in the House about our commitment to a future customs arrangement. On the Conservative side, we would like to have a customs arrangement that guarantees frictionless trade until there are alternative arrangements, which the EU has approved, that might set us free to be able to strike our own trade deals. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) shouts “Unicorn” from her seat. Well, that is not exactly what the EU has said. It has just said that it is not ready yet and that it does not know when it will be ready. On the Opposition Benches, hon. Members want to have a permanent customs union. The beauty of our motion today is that it allows us all to vote for it, because the truth is that we do not need to make that choice now. Those alternative arrangements will not be ready for several years and at the next election the Opposition parties can argue for a permanent customs union and we can argue for free trade or the EFTA free trade agreement, and we can agree to pursue our different visions of the future.

Sarah Wollaston: rose—

Nicholas Boles: I will give way one last time.

Sarah Wollaston: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case for this being the least damaging form of Brexit. The trouble is that it will end up pleasing no one: neither the remainers who voted to remain, nor a very significant number of his colleagues who voted to leave. Would it not be best, if it does not have the consent of this House, at least to check that it has the consent of the people? Would he agree to link it to a public vote, so that we can check that it really is the will of the people?

Nicholas Boles: The hon. Lady makes a powerful argument, as she has done consistently. The funny thing about this position is what happened in Norway. It was meant to be temporary for Norway. It went into this thing on its way into the EU. All the Norwegian elite—both sides of Parliament, all the business elite and everybody else—want to get into the EU, but the Norwegian people consistently say, “No, thank you very much, we are quite happy where we are.” Some 65% to 70% of the Norwegian people say, “Do you know what? This halfway house is absolutely perfect for us.” My prediction is that that is what the British people would conclude, too.
Each of us today is a leader. The Prime Minister has one vote, the Leader of the Opposition has one vote, and so does every other right hon. and hon. Member. In years to come, the question that our children and grandchildren will ask us is this: in that historic week  when Parliament took charge of the nation’s destiny, what did you do? Did you stand up and lead? Did you step forward to help reunite our country, or did you hang back in your party trench waiting to be told what to do and where to go? I have already made my choice at the cost of my future career in this House. It is now time for others to choose. To all right hon. and hon. Members I say this: if you choose common market 2.0 this evening, the history books will record it as the moment that our country turned a corner and the part you played will be something of which you will be forever proud.

Keir Starmer: I welcome this debate. It is a historic day for this Parliament and for the power of MPs. In that spirit, I will keep my remarks very short, because this is a day for Back Benchers and for those putting forward their case for particular propositions. I believe there are some 47 Members who want to speak.
Labour’s approach today is that we will support amendments that are consistent with the two credible options we have set out on a number of occasions: a close economic partnership based on a customs union and close single market alignment; and a public vote to prevent no deal or a damaging Brexit. We will oppose those amendments that either offer no route forward or set out an approach that is inconsistent with our policy. In that spirit, I can confirm that we will be whipping tonight to support: amendment (K), in my name and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition; amendment (J), the customs union amendment tabled by the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke); and amendment (M), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), which was tabled, of course, after much consultation and support from my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). I will come on to amendment (D) in just one moment.
Let me start with motion (K), which mirrors the five pillars of the plan that we have set out on many occasions, both in this House and in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister in February.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I will make some progress, because I have spent a lot of time at this Dispatch Box and I have been able to make my case. Others want to make their case today and I want to give them the opportunity to do so.
Motion (K) mirrors the plan that we have set out. It was in the letter from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister in February. I remind the House that the pillars are a comprehensive and permanent customs union with the EU, close alignment with the single market, dynamic alignment on rights and protections, accompanied by much stronger commitments on agencies and security. We have never pretended that this will be easy or painless to negotiate. It involves compromise and negotiation, but we believe that it could be negotiated, and it would form the basis of a deal that protects jobs, rights and the economy.
Turning to motion (J) on the customs union, Labour’s support for a customs union is well known. I want to be clear that a customs union on its own is not enough. A customs union protects manufacturing supply chains and is relevant to the protection of the border in Northern Ireland, but it has to be part of a wider package, hence our motion (K), which sets out the package that we believe is needed. However, motion (J) is worded to specify that a customs union is a minimum part of any deal and we will support it on that basis.

Greg Hands: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I will just make some progress and then I will. Turning to motion (M), we will support this motion tonight, because at this stage it is now clear that any Brexit deal agreed in this Parliament needs further democratic approval. That is what this motion would do. It would put a lock around any deal that the Prime Minister forces through at the 11th hour or any revised deal that comes about at this very late stage. It would ensure that any Tory Brexit deal is subject to a referendum lock and it is consistent with commitments that the Leader of the Opposition and I have made from this Dispatch Box in recent weeks.
In relation to motion (D)—the common market and the Norway motion—I want to be clear that we have concerns about this proposal, and it has not been our preferred option. We have concerns about the lack of a commitment to a permanent and comprehensive customs union, although I listened carefully to the words that were just exchanged in the House. However, we recognise that this motion would deliver a close economic relationship with the EU and would help to protect jobs, rights and the economy. It is credible and it is deliverable, so we believe that this motion should remain an option and continue in the process. We will therefore be recommending that Labour Members vote for it tonight.
This is an extremely important and welcome debate. It is frankly two years overdue. This is the debate that the Prime Minister should have started two years ago at the beginning of the process, but we are where we are, and Parliament finally has the chance to shape the way out of the Prime Minister’s mess.

Kenneth Clarke: I join those who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on giving us this opportunity. At last we are seeing, as we go along, that the House is moving into a mood where it is going to be possible to end the catastrophic shambles of the last six months. We are beginning to talk about actually being able to take decisions founded on some sort of cross-party consensus and some search for a majority that can be sustained through the difficult and long negotiations that will be required to reach agreement on our final relations with the European Union. It seems to me that it is up to the House to respond to that properly and deal with this procedure, with a willingness to compromise with one another and move towards some eventual binding recommendation to the Government about the way in which things should be conducted in future. I shall certainly approach this in that way.
My right hon. Friend has also helped the Government, although they are bitterly resistant to what he has done, raising absurd constitutional arguments, which are complete fiction and which they could have remedied easily if they had put down their own proposals for having indicative votes, as they told us that they were going to two days ago. This hair-splitting thing about it being the Government who should table business motions, and not Back Benchers, is a completely piffling irrelevance. He has actually helped them considerably: I have never seen the right-wing members of the European Research Group more apparently panicked by the way the House as a whole is moving. They are demonstrably in a minority, their dreams of a no-deal departure are fading, and despite their frequent meetings with the Prime Minister and their gliding into Chequers at the weekend, they are beginning to peel off one by one, having first rebuffed it.
I congratulate those who put this process together and those Ministers who resigned to get this pressure going and bring us nearer to reality, and I will turn now to the substance of how I am going to vote. As I have said, I will vote not for my first preference—I will when it occurs—but for that which I can live with. Unfortunately, I think we are doomed to leave the European Union within the next two or three years. My duty now is to exercise my own judgment as to what is in the national interest, will minimise the damaging consequences and will perhaps save some of the better features for future generations.
As I have said before, the obvious compromise is, unfortunately, to give up the political European Union and leave the political institution and remain in the common market, as the public still call it—the customs union and the single market—thereby avoiding problems at the borders and for business, ensuring the smooth running of trade, and so on.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I would like to—I have been collaborating with the hon. Gentleman—but I must take notice of time.
Under such a compromise, we would continue to enjoy the economic advantages of being in the biggest and most prosperous international free trade area in the world and begin to reconcile the 52% with the 48%. Most sensible members of the public, however passionate their views, be they remain or leave, could see the sense in coming together around such a compromise. It was the main Eurosceptic demand 20 years ago: leave the EU but not the common market. If we solved that, we could begin to repair the dreadful political mood in the country.
I will vote for revoke whenever it appears, because that is my personal preference, but that is self-indulgence, and I will support—[Laughter.] If we get a majority, I will be delighted.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I will not give way to my fellow collaborator on revoking.
I will support common market 2.0 and anything that resembles it, though I will not dwell on it further, as I have already dealt with it. I come then to my motion (J).  As I have already indicated, it is not my first preference—the two I have already named are my preferences—but it is tabled to maximise support in the House so that we can move on Monday towards our really taking control and actually putting the Government, though they do not accept it, in a much stronger position than they are today when it comes to the future negotiations.
Motion (J) advocates a customs union only—a permanent customs union, I point out to the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who intervened earlier on this point—and would keep the minimum needed for frictionless trade and an open border in Ireland. We would also need some understanding or moves on regulatory convergence, but that does not need to be dealt with at this stage. If we start with the premise that we will be permanently in a customs union, it would bring greater clarity to the next stage—the really important stage—of the negotiations. I think that every other EU member state would be ready to accede to that, and it would improve the climate of the negotiations.
The motion is designed to appeal in particular to Labour Members who are demanding it and to my more cautious right hon. and hon. Friends in the Conservative party. Those who have hang-ups about rule-making and use medieval language about vassal states and all the rest of it are talking about the single market. Motion (J) does not include the single market. The customs union guarantees a reasonably frictionless relationship and the possibility of completely open trade in the future, and leaves all the other things to be decided in the negotiations.

Greg Hands: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Kenneth Clarke: No, I will not.
That is the basis on which I tabled motion (J), and I commend it to the House. Members may prefer a different motion; I shall vote for several. I think that we should all vote for as many of the motions as we can, and then we will see which is the strongest. We will not be dismissed by the more fervent members of the Government saying that they have all been defeated, and none of them secured an individual majority. On Monday, we could move on to how we sift them out.
Above all, for Labour Members this will, I hope, pave the way for allowing the withdrawal agreement to go through, because their main argument is not about the contents of the withdrawal agreement but about the “blind Brexit” that worries them so much. Even in motion (J)—if we cannot get a stronger one—there is not a blind Brexit any more. Labour Members could at least abstain, so that we could secure the withdrawal agreement and then move on to what really matters—the serious long-term negotiations on the big issues, which we shall have to handle much better than we are doing now.
My last word is this. If we fail, and if we are faced in a fortnight’s time with no deal, I think the feeling in the House is so strongly against that outcome that we must all vote to revoke at that stage. A great many members of the public will probably think that we have got ourselves into such a mess that it might have been sensible to do that anyway. We should stop now, sort out what we are doing, and perhaps start again if the House is still enthusiastic about leaving. However, I  hope we can avoid that conclusion by demonstrating that Parliament is capable of orderly debate, reasonable conclusions, and contributing to the better governance of this country as part of this process—including, I hope, my motion (J).

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I can tell the House that no lead sponsors have informed me—and I indicated that they needed to do so before 4 pm—that they do not wish a recorded vote to take place on their motion. I can therefore confirm that the motions on which Members will be able to vote are as previously announced, namely (B) for Baron, (D) in the name of Nick Boles, (H) in the name of George Eustice, (J) in the name of Mr Kenneth Clarke, (K) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, (L) in the name of Joanna Cherry, (M) in the name of Margaret Beckett, and (O) in the name of Mr Marcus Fysh.

Joanna Cherry: I rise with the endorsement of the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), for my motion (L)—for which I am grateful to him—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who has prosecuted the issue of revocation with such vigour in the House over the past few months. I am glad to say that my motion is supported by all parties in the House. It has the official backing of the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Independent Group. Many Labour Members have told me that they intend to support the motion, and I hope very much that the Labour party will reconsider its decision not to whip on it.

Angus MacNeil: Surely anyone who has said in the House “No to no deal” must support motion (L), because it gives a mechanism to that—namely, revocation.

Joanna Cherry: Absolutely. If there is one thing that we can achieve this afternoon by supporting this motion, it is categorically ruling out no deal. The motion is a revocation backstop. It stipulates that if within two days of exit day we have no agreed deal and Parliament does not positively approve no deal, the Government must revoke the article 50 notice, and we will stay in the EU. But it is important to understand that revocation does not mean that we could never notify the EU of our intention to leave again. That is incorrect, as Members will see if they read the decision of the Grand Chamber in the Court of Justice of the European Union on the case that I and others brought.

Sammy Wilson: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Joanna Cherry: I will in a moment, but I just want to make this clear: the amendment has been carefully drafted by myself and a team of lawyers to give the Government a clear and unequivocal instruction, and it is the only way to make the Prime Minister hold to her promise that she gave this House on Monday when she said:
“unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 25.]
This motion would achieve that. It is the culmination of cross-party work that commenced with a group of Scottish parliamentarians, including myself and other SNP parliamentarians, two Scottish Greens and two Scottish Labour MEPs and the English QC Jo Maugham, who has helped me draft the amendment. We fought the British Government all the way to the Court of Justice to establish that if the United Kingdom got into the kind of mess we are now in, it would have the right to unilaterally revoke article 50. It is important that the instruction is clear and unequivocal, because if Parliament gives the Government a clear and unequivocal instruction then, if the Government fail to follow that clear and unequivocal instruction, because it is clear and unequivocal, we would have a range of political and legal remedies to make sure they did what the democratic vote of this House was to do.

Sammy Wilson: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for giving way. I wanted to give her an opportunity to correct something. She said this motion had all-party support; it does not have the support of the DUP because of course we believe that, through the referendum result, the people of the United Kingdom have said what they wish, and we do not want to revoke that decision.

Joanna Cherry: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I sometimes forget that the DUP is not part of the Government, because it very much feels like that. I am very happy to say that I can live without the support of the DUP.
This is a cross-party motion, except for the DUP, and it continues the cross-party working which got the judgment from the Court of Justice; and today is about cross-party working to try to get us out of the mess we are in.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Joanna Cherry: I am going to make some progress as I am very conscious of the time strictures.
Conservative Members of this House should support this motion because it is making good on the promise that their Prime Minister—she was still Prime Minister the last time I looked—made to the Commons earlier this week when she said:
“unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 25.]
Labour MPs should support it because it fits with their manifesto. They said in their manifesto:
“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option”.
This motion is the only means today for Labour to fulfil that manifesto promise, and I know that the Labour party has repeatedly asked the Government to rule out no deal so I entreat them to support this motion today as the means of doing that.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Joanna Cherry: I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a co-sponsor of the amendment.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady. Does she agree that the point about this motion is that it is there in extremis? It is not there to summarily  revoke article 50, but only to do it in the event of circumstances where there is no alternative and no ability to get an extension that might deliver a referendum, for example, or some other conclusion.

Joanna Cherry: That is exactly so, and I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for spelling that out so clearly and for lending his support to this motion.
Fellow Members can support this motion even if they are supporting other motions tonight. It should be acceptable to supporters of the current draft withdrawal agreement—for some reason that is not on the Order Paper today, but we might see it later in the week. If an hon. Member wished to support the Prime Minister’s deal, they could also support my motion because it is a failsafe. If an hon. Member wished to support Norway-plus, they could also support my motion because it is a failsafe. And, very importantly, those of us who wish to support a people’s vote can also support this because it is a failsafe. Also, it does not even preclude a general election, because the way the motion is worded makes it kick in on the penultimate day before exit day, which is of course a moving target at the moment; so it leaves the door open to a general election, which I know some of us would quite like to see, particularly the SNP in Scotland as we are riding so high in the opinion polls. But today is about cross-party working and democracy, because the decision that we are taking is of generational importance for the United Kingdom and it ought to be the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom in this House who decide between revocation and no deal, not the Prime Minister of a minority Government.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. and learned Lady mentioned the spirit of cross-party working. She also asked about the Labour whipping arrangements, and I can assure her, as one of those who has signed her motion, that the Labour whip is not to oppose her motion. There is simply a recommendation to abstain, but I am sure that a number of my colleagues will be supporting it.

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that and for his support, but I am puzzled why Labour Members would be instructed to abstain on this motion, as it is the only means for them to fulfil their manifesto promise. However, I will leave that to Labour Members, who I am sure will have been receiving the same amount of lobbying as I have—

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry if I was not clear. It is not an instruction; it is a recommendation. That is entirely different when it comes to whipping.

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that, and I feel more and more encouraged that many more Labour MPs will support the motion. I will not take up any more time; I simply want to thank all Members who have signed and supported my motion.

Stephen Barclay: As the Leader of the House set out earlier, the options that the House considers this evening   should be deliverable, but it is clear that a number of them fall short of that test—[Interruption.] Well, motions (H) and (O) are just two examples. As the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said earlier, there are 47 Back Benchers wishing to speak, and he and I have had quite a few opportunities to debate these issues, so, like him, I will try to keep my comments short this afternoon.
I want to reaffirm that it remains the Government’s priority to secure approval of the withdrawal agreement this week to allow us to leave the EU in an orderly fashion—while noting your earlier comments, Mr Speaker. It is only by doing this that we can be guaranteed to leave the EU on 22 May and not face a cliff edge in two weeks’ time. To maximise our ability to secure that approval, the Government will later today table a motion for the House to sit this Friday. This will be taken as the last order of business tomorrow, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will confirm the business for Friday in her business statement tomorrow morning. I appreciate that this might cause some inconvenience, but I hope that all Members will agree that it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Turning to the specific motions before the House, I shall start with motion (B), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), which seeks to leave on the basis of no deal. He will be aware that the House has already voted, on Wednesday 13 March, on leaving on a no-deal basis. It remains the Government’s priority to have a deal and a trading relationship with the European Union, as was set out by the official leave campaign.

Neil Gray: If it is the Government’s position to ensure that the country does not leave without a deal, and if there is no way for the Prime Minister’s deal to get through, given the Speaker’s intervention, why will the Government not allow the motion tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to carry, to provide a revoke backstop and to guarantee that there cannot be a no-deal exit?

Stephen Barclay: I will come to the hon. and learned Lady’s motion to revoke in due course. I will take the motions in the order that Mr Speaker selected them. Turning to motion (L) from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, which deals with revoking article 50 after a vote on no deal on the penultimate sitting day before exit day, it has long been the Government’s policy not to revoke article 50, and that position remains the same.
Motion (D) comes from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). He is a good friend, and I know that he tabled it in the spirit of trying to seek a solution for the House, but the fact that the labelling of his suggestion has been through so many different terms—Norway for now, Norway, Canada, EEA-plus, Norway-plus—draws attention to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), which is that there are several problems with the proposal. To take issue with two specific points, paragraph (1)(b) refers to
“continuing status as a party to the European Economic Area Agreement”,
but I gently say that that is factually incorrect. The United Kingdom is a member of the EEA only through its membership of the EU, and therefore—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford shakes his head, but that is the clear position of Her Majesty’s Government.

Nicholas Boles: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Barclay: Given that it is my hon. Friend, I will take one further intervention.

Nicholas Boles: I will be brief. My right hon. Friend is correct to say that this is a legally disputed point. There are lawyers who agree with him, but I can cite Sir Alan Dashwood QC, the leading silk on EU law, and George Peretz QC, the leading silk on EFTA law, who both disagree with him.

Stephen Barclay: As a former respected Minister, my hon. Friend will know that I am stating the clear position of the Government Law Officers. The same point also relates to the meat of motion (H), because line 5 states that we need to give notice to leave the EEA, which is not the case.
The second issue with motion (D) is that paragraph (1)(e) states that freedom of movement can be restricted to those “genuinely seeking work” or those with “sufficient resources”. Again, that is just incorrect. The existing position as a member of the EU28 is that controls can be put in place, but that has not happened because of how the UK operates. We do not have a registration or ID system or an insurance-based health system, so there are reasons why such controls are not used. With respect, the proposal is a fig leaf to disguise the fact that his solution requires the continuation of freedom of movement.

James Cartlidge: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Barclay: I am conscious that 47 Members want to speak, so I will press on. I am sure that we will have a further debate before too many days have passed.
Turning quickly to motion (J) in the name of the Father of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), my concern is that it would open up a role for the courts given that it would be for them to adjudicate on whether the suggestion of a comprehensive UK-wide customs union has been met in our negotiating mandate.
Motion (O) is referred to by some hon. Friends as the Malthouse compromise—Malthouse plan B in this case—and it would involve paying for an implementation period. However, the EU’s clear position is that that proposal would be regarded as the UK reneging on an agreed fair settlement, which it has repeatedly said it is unwilling to accept.
As for the flaws of motion (K) from the Leader of the Opposition, we have been around these houses so many times that we do not dwell on them. Paragraph (a)(iii) refers to “dynamic alignment” but we have already committed to temporary alignment when it comes to implementing EU workers’ rights. Again, the motion also does not address the fact that the Opposition appear to accept the withdrawal agreement but seem reluctant to say so.
In conclusion, the motions before the House represent a range of suboptimal solutions that either do not deliver on the referendum result or do so in a way that  would not deliver the benefits of the Prime Minister’s deal. That is why the deal remains the best method to deliver on the biggest vote in our history in a way that protects business and citizens’ rights.

Margaret Beckett: Negotiations succeed when no one gets everything they want but everyone gets something they want, and I hope that is the spirit in which we can approach today’s proceedings. This consultative process is too little and too late, but it is a lot better than carrying on as we were. We all owe a debt of gratitude to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who have striven to find proposals that could command wider support so that, finally, some alternative ideas are before the House, and I very much hope some common ground can be identified.
There is one vital thing that all these varied proposals have in common: not one of them reflects what the British people were told were the prospects before them when they cast their votes in 2016, and nor does the Prime Minister’s package, although that is not on the Order Paper. These differences from what was said to be on offer are substantial. The one key element that figures in each and every one of the proposed alternatives is the matter of sovereignty. It is key because all these proposals, including the Prime Minister’s, would mean that we follow EU laws and regulations without having any real say in their content.
In 1975, during the first referendum on our links with Europe, I campaigned against continuing those links, mainly because of the diminution of sovereignty they implied, but at least then we were not forfeiting sovereignty but sharing it. Today’s proposals mean we stand to lose our voice, our vote and our veto. Successive British Governments have used voice, vote and, occasionally, veto to considerable effect. We already have special deals all over the place. We do not have to be in the euro and we do not have to be a member of the borderless Schengen area. And we have helped to shape agreements within the EU and, as an EU member, across the world.
School students across the world recently went on to the streets to campaign against the threat to life on this planet, including the threat to the continued existence of the human race. Within the EU, the UK has played a substantial role over the years, under successive Governments, in pursuing these issues, and it was experiencing the influence that we could and did wield internationally in this sphere that finally and wholeheartedly convinced me of the value of our EU membership.
The Prime Minister’s deal and the various alternatives, one and all, surrender that shared sovereignty. They would make us rule takers without being, as we have been, influential rule makers. It is clear that many who voted leave have accepted the possible economic damage, of which they have been warned, as a price they are prepared to pay for the return of sovereignty, and I honour them for that stance, but sovereignty is not returning. In fact, we are sacrificing sovereignty for the sake of saying we are no longer a member of the EU. I recognise that such a deal may be all that is on offer, but to me it is inconceivable that its acceptance should be solely a matter for Members of this House. I genuinely have no idea what view the British people might take of these various compromises, and certainly many, including in this House, vehemently oppose their even being asked.
Ever since the day of the second referendum result in 2016, a deluge of not only warnings but threats has come from those who take that view, forecasting unrest, civil disorder, greater division and a dramatic further reduction in the public’s trust in politics. But I invite colleagues who determinedly resist a confirmatory vote to look starkly at the full implications of what they are saying. They are willing, some are determined, to vote to terminate our membership of the European Union even if it may now be against the wishes of the majority of the British people. Consider the possible consequences for trust in politics or for social peace if this House forces an outcome on the people of this country that they no longer desire—that really would be the undemocratic, establishment stitch-up of all time.
We have all heard people say that the deals now available are worse than the one we now have as EU members, and some still say that, nevertheless, they still wish to leave. My mother would have called that cutting off your nose to spite your face, but if that is still the view of the majority, so be it. But how, in all conscience, can we alone in this House force through such a decision on their behalf without allowing them any say as to whether that is still their view?

David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
As with the Good Friday agreement, whatever emerges from these complex negotiations, the outcome should go back to the people for confirmation. The people started this process. They set a desired goal. It has proved far more difficult and tortuous than predicted, but we will now soon have a potential outcome. It is the people who should choose whether, on the terms now on offer, they still wish to proceed. Theirs should be the final decision on this, which is the first stage only of our withdrawal from the EU. With a clear conscience, I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that that is the outcome that this House has secured. The European Union needs reform. Britain could play a key role in shaping it or we can just walk away and live with the consequences. But it is the British people who should now decide what comes next.

George Eustice: I rise in support of motion (h), which stands in my name. It involves leaving the European Union but rejoining the European Free Trade Association and relying on our existing rights under the treaty establishing the European economic area. It differs from the “Common market 2.0” proposal in a couple of important areas. First, it does not envisage the need for a customs union. Secondly, it does not necessarily require the existing withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister has been putting to this House.
I had a pretty good innings as agriculture Minister. Indeed, three months ago, after a reshuffle in Luxembourg, I became, for a short time, the longest serving agriculture Minister in Europe. In my five and a half years, I attended the AgriFish Council on a monthly basis, discussing all sorts of obscure and technical issues. I saw 10 EU presidencies come and go. Each came in  with its list of priorities and each went out lamenting the fact that little had been achieved. I recall one occasion, before Italy was commencing its presidency, when the Italian Minister cast aside the notes his officials had given him and simply said, “We will talk about the usual stuff and probably not get much done.”
I have three observations that my experience has given me that I would like to highlight, because they underpin the approach I have suggested. First, we must recognise that the European Union moves at glacial pace; it is not agile. It makes tiny, incremental changes and takes years to do so; I remember arguing for three or four years about something as simple as changes to organic food labelling. Secondly, the EU does not really follow national democracies; it sees what happens in national democracy as a national issue and a national problem. The European institutions live by their treaties and the letter of the words in them. Finally, decades of EU membership has engendered a particular type of culture among our negotiators and our civil service. I have huge admiration for our civil service but, undoubtedly, a qualified majority voting system is all about trying to get something rather than be willing to walk away from the table. That is why in both the negotiation that David Cameron had and the current negotiation officials would often come back claiming that things are “not negotiable”. Therefore, the simple proposition behind motion (h) is that, rather than wade through the treacle and try to negotiate a bespoke deal from scratch, knowing the nature of European institutions, why not instead use existing treaty rights as our starting point and allow things to evolve from that point?
The UK is a signatory to the treaty that established the European economic area in 1994, and it had that role because at that point the EU had no legal personality. At times, as the Secretary of State repeated today, the Government have adopted a political line to take, claiming that our EEA membership automatically falls away when we leave the European Union. That claim is wrong in law. A year ago, I was in Oslo, and at that time our ambassador to Norway was on standby, having been ordered by the Foreign Office to deliver a letter to give notice under article 127 of the EEA treaty, although in the event the Foreign Office chose not to. In 2017, during a judicial review hearing, Sir James Eadie QC, no less than the counsel representing the Government, made exactly the reverse claim: he claimed that we had not taken the decision to leave the EEA, and in his submission to the court he claimed it is not true that our membership of the EEA automatically falls away with our membership of the European Union.
It is either the case that the Government—advised, I am sure, by Government Law Officers—have been repeatedly wrong at the Dispatch Box, or it is the case that they did not give a true account of their understanding of the law to a court. Having talked to several lawyers who understand these things, my understanding is that we are indeed a signatory to the EEA and that our rights and obligations remain intact. It is simply the case that to make those rights and obligations operable, we have either to be in the EU pillar of that agreement, as we are now, or to switch to the EFTA pillar.
Under international law, both the European Union and the EFTA states are under an obligation to make treaties work and to work with any consequential changes to a treaty that might be required to ensure that it is  operable. An application to join EFTA cannot be unreasonably refused. Indeed, in my discussions with both Iceland and Norway, they made it clear that they would not stand in the way of such an option.
The EFTA option is sometimes described as the Norway option, but it has a very British pedigree. Sixty years ago, in 1959, Members in this House debated the establishment of the European Free Trade Association. When there was a cross-party consensus that the political and democratic costs of joining the then European Economic Community were too great, it was this House that forged ahead to build an alliance of countries, including not only Norway but Portugal, Austria, Sweden and others, to form the European Free Trade Association. The idea was supported by both Harold Macmillan and Harold Wilson. Would it really be such a bad thing to return to that model, given that we were the godfather of the European Free Trade Association?
In conclusion, the benefits of the approach I have set out are that we can get things done quickly. We can join the EFTA surveillance system within three months and have full EFTA membership within six months. We would have a ready-made free trade agreement. We would be outside the customs union and would have an independent trade policy, and we would have control of our fishing grounds again and an independent agriculture policy. We would become an independent country again.

Hilary Benn: Is there not something really quite liberating about the debate we are having? The normal atmosphere and structure, with propositions from one side or the other, have all disappeared as the House of Commons has taken control of this really important discussion about how we are going to take our country forward. Another striking thing is that every single Member who has spoken in support of a proposition has not sought to rubbish the other propositions; they have put their case in an effort to win support from across the House. If that is not confirmation of the wisdom of the House’s having taken control—I do not like that phrase because I think it is the House doing its job—to allow us to do that, I do not know what is.
I will make two points. First, I will vote for the customs union motion moved by the Father of the House, which everyone in the Chamber knows is an essential building block to make any progress towards achieving the two objectives set by the Prime Minister: keeping an open border and at the same time keeping friction-free trade moving to oil the wheels of our industry. I will also vote for the common market 2.0 proposal, although, like many others, I note the difference between, on the one hand, a customs union and, on the other, a customs arrangement. It is a compromise proposal, but I will support it.
I will also vote for the confirmatory referendum. I thought we heard an absolutely outstanding speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I will vote for it as someone who, for a long time, has not argued for a people’s vote, but I want to explain why I have come to the conclusion that a confirmatory referendum is the only way forward. In essence, it is because things have changed. The proposition put before the British people by the leave campaign during the referendum—that one did not  have to choose between our sovereignty, on the one hand, and the economic health of the country on the other—has proven to be false.

David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: I will not because many people want to speak. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The anger expressed by some Members towards the Prime Minister’s deal is in part revealing. The truth is that there is a choice to be made. The suggestion that we could have all the things that we wanted without anything that we did not has proven not to be the case. If things have changed, should we not therefore ask the people?
Secondly, the Government changed their mind originally on whether the House would have a meaningful vote. The Government said at one point that there would be an enormous row about the structure of the negotiations and then changed their mind and accepted the way in which the European Union wanted to conduct them. The Government have come back once already, and may well this week come back again, in an attempt to persuade us to change our minds about the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The first holder of the post of Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union changed his mind about supporting the deal. There are reports that the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) may be in the process of changing his mind as well. The Prime Minister said 108 times that we would definitely leave on 29 March, but she changed her mind and we are not.
Why is it that the only people in this debate apparently not allowed to be asked whether they have changed their minds are the British people? How can that be democratic? If Members agree that it is not, I hope very much that they will vote for motion (M) tonight.

Marcus Fysh: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). However, let us actually remember the people in all this. They voted two years ago to leave the European Union and then they voted in an election in which we stood on a manifesto saying that we would leave the European Union and its two main pillars, the single market and the customs union, which are integral to what the European Union is. They want their instruction to be carried out now. To be honest, I think it is quite shameful to call for a second referendum before the result of the first has even been implemented.
Let me discuss what the reality would be if we went down the road of participation in the single market and customs union, which most of these motions are trying to implement, even as we leave, in contravention of our manifesto commitments and the referendum result. Those options would effectively give away our trade policy and the control of regulation in our own country, both of which are valuable to our economy, our future as a nation and our children.
With respect, many people do not quite understand what being in a customs union, rather than being in the customs union of the European Union, would actually entail. Many people think that it would allow frictionless trade, but that is not correct. It would mean that we would have to implement a system of movement certificates  and export declarations. It would not take away the need for border formalities and the recording of goods moving across borders.

Anna Soubry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Marcus Fysh: I am not going to give way because I know that a lot of people want to speak.
In a customs union, we would not be in control of various aspects of the process. We would not be in control of the conditions of the border formalities, nor of the tariffs collected. For example, if goods were coming to our market via Rotterdam, the tariffs on those imports—effectively to us—would be collected and kept in the European Union. A customs union would not give us control over our money, our trading partners’ access to our market, or our traders’ access to our trading partners’ markets. It really is inconceivable that we should even be considering any recognisable description of a permanent customs union as a feature of leaving the EU. That is one reason that people outside this place are quite confused by some of the suggestions that the House has been coming up with.
Many of the single market and customs union proposals on the table tonight would not obviate the need for a backstop in the withdrawal agreement, so the problems of the withdrawal agreement highlighted by some Conservative Members and others would remain anyway. There is the problem of being hostage to fortune within the further negotiation of how these customs union or single market arrangements might work. For example, exemptions on fishing and other matters would still be up for negotiation, as we heard earlier, but we would be in a relatively weak position in those negotiations. Defence manufacturing would be prejudiced by the backstop, should we end up having to go into it. The same is true for agriculture, as the restrictions on state aid for our agriculture, while the EU is allowed to subsidise its agriculture, would still remain. The issue of Northern Ireland—what happens to Northern Ireland should we not be able to agree—would still remain. I do not really see those motions as solutions. It is also possible, to come to the circumstances of my motion—

Toby Perkins: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for five minutes, but he has not yet had an opportunity to tell us why we should vote for his motion. Would you encourage him to tell us about motion (O), rather than what is wrong with all the other motions?

John Bercow: Yes, and it would be best if the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) would expedite the process in the light of the number of colleagues who wish to contribute.

Marcus Fysh: That is exactly what I was getting to. Motion (O) is about what happens in the circumstances that we cannot agree a withdrawal agreement for one reason or another, and there are a host of circumstances where that might occur. The European Union might not want to do that. It might not want to extend; all sorts of different permutations could have an impact. I do not think that this House is going to revoke article 50, because that really would be a finger in the eye to the  public, so we need to have a plan B. This sets out a plan B arrangement—a contingency arrangement. It is, in essence, a two-year stop-gap arrangement to facilitate trade and allow space for our longer-term negotiation to take place. It consists, in effect, of having a trade preference with no tariffs and no quantitative restrictions, with mutual recognition of standards and conformity assessment. It involves having a customs arrangement but one that consists of advance trade facilitation measures. We are prepared to pay money for that and to agree potentially other measures that are within the withdrawal agreement; the EU will no doubt want to try to agree some of the things, such as on geographical indications, that we have agreed.
This is a practical approach and a compromise that was discussed in the Malthouse process, showing what to do as a back-up if we cannot get anything else done. It is a very fair settlement. It does involve money, contrary to what the Secretary of State said. We know that EU business wants to trade with us. We now know that the EU and Ireland have no intention of putting up a hard border. I have no doubt that they have seen the alternative arrangements that we have proposed and that that is how they would want to implement things. So that is how we are going to do this.
This is simple to agree. It does not prejudice the future relationship with the EU, so we can keep talking about that. It is pro-trade and pro-business with the EU as well as the rest of the world. It honours the referendum and our manifesto. I commend it to the House.

Ian Blackford: I apologise to hon. and right hon. Members, but given the time constraints I will not extend the usual courtesy of taking interventions.
I am particularly pleased to be participating in this debate, because today we can start to bring an end to the chaos. Parliament has taken back control because this Tory Government and this Prime Minister are out of control. Scotland did not ask for this crisis; nobody asked for this chaos. Of course, Scotland voted to remain in the EU. We voted overwhelmingly to protect our economy and the freedoms and the values that the European Union gives to the people of Scotland. Scotland is a European country; historically, we have been a European country. Economically, socially and culturally, we benefit from our membership.
Today the SNP laid a motion to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard, because Scotland’s wishes have been completely ignored during the Brexit process. This is in stark contrast to the European Union, which seeks consensus and fosters collaboration through its institutions and throughout the Community. It is a partnership of equals, in stark contrast to this place, where there is no equality of respect for the devolved institutions. That lack of appreciation of how the UK should work post-devolution will haunt this place. Increasingly, those living in Scotland will reflect on the way that we are treated in this Union—the United Kingdom. It is most certainly not the partnership of equals that the Prime Minister had promised us. It is one where we are told, quite simply, that our votes do not count, where we can be stripped of our European citizenship—and for what?—and where we will pay a price economically, socially and culturally.
The facts are clear—Brexit will rob Scotland of jobs. It will rob our economy of talented workers that our public sector needs. It will steal opportunities to travel and learn from our EU partners from future generations. It will divide relationships—families and friendships. There is no such thing as a good Brexit, and it must be stopped. We must act to protect the interests of our citizens, of our communities, and of our nations. Today is the opportunity—perhaps the only opportunity.
Today in the European Parliament, my friend and colleague, Alyn Smith MEP, asked Europe to keep a light on for Scotland to show us the way home. I want the EU to keep a light on for Scotland. As Members of Parliament, we must decide: can we follow that light, or is the United Kingdom heading into the darkness? Scotland will not follow the UK into that darkness if the UK fails to change course. We can and will follow the light, to allow Scotland to become an independent country in the European Union.
I want to make it clear that tonight the Scottish National party will vote for our preferred options on the Order Paper. We will vote for a second EU referendum, and we will vote for motions to revoke article 50, as revocation may be our only option to get out of this mess. Those options must remain on the table. The Scottish Parliament will vote today to endorse revocation in the event of no deal. We expect that to be backed on a cross-party basis, and, I say to friends and colleagues, that includes the Labour party. Revoke must be an option. I therefore ask Members to support motion (L), tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
Let me speak to some of the other motions. We on the SNP Benches would like to seek clarity from the official Opposition about their motion. For Scotland, freedom of movement without any caveats is essential, not just in principle but for the sake of our nation’s prosperity. Can those on the Labour Front Bench confirm that their motion protects and continues the policy of freedom of movement in full?
I turn to motion (D), in the name of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). Let me be clear: the SNP does not and will not endorse the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement. The agreement Bill requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and the UK Government have already broken that process. The people of Scotland voted to remain, and as I noted in my remarks on the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, freedom of movement is essential for the SNP. Our nation’s future and our public services depend on it. We must have total confidence that in any Norway-plus proposal, the freedom of movement that we currently benefit from will continue and we will have access to the single market and customs union in full.
We have further questions regarding the proposals of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford for a customs arrangement and the prospect of alternative arrangements to ensure frictionless trade. I hear his assurance on freedom of movement, and we will not oppose his motion, but it will certainly be difficult for us to support it, particularly as remain is the option that we demand.
Let me make it clear: the SNP wants to find a way forward. Our preferred option is to remain in the European Union—that is what Scotland voted for—and as long as that is an option, we will vote for it, but we have  always said that if it proves not to be possible, we will seek compromise to protect Scotland’s interests. We have set out previously what compromise is for us—and remember, that would be compromise from a position where the country we represent did not vote for Brexit and our national Parliament is opposed to Brexit.
That compromise, endorsed by the Scottish Parliament, is “Scotland’s Place in Europe”. Published in December 2016 and ignored by the UK Government, it proposes full membership of the European single market and the customs union, but that position is not encapsulated yet in any of the proposals put forward tonight. Our compromise requires full acceptance of freedom of movement and respect for the position of the Scottish Parliament and for devolution as a whole. We have put forward that compromise time and again for more than two years, but it has continually been ignored. While we know that some Members agree with us in principle, there is more work to be done by those on the Labour and Tory Benches to get to a position that we could accept, if we cannot put this matter back to the people or choose to remain in the EU.
When I look at the Order Paper, I see that there is space to compromise; there is a better way out of this mess. On Saturday, more than 1 million people marched to ask that they get the chance to vote on their future within the European Union. I was proud to stand with them alongside our First Minister. People from all parts of the United Kingdom now know the price that will be paid for Brexit—economic disaster—and they want another say. Member across the House may feel some discomfort or unease about a second EU referendum, but what is more respectful to the electorate, when this place has repeatedly failed, than giving them back control? There is nothing to fear. The Prime Minister does not have support for her deal, and this House has not found a solution, so let us do the right thing and end this stalemate by letting the people decide. I urge Members to join the SNP, compromise at this critical hour and vote for a motion to hold a second EU referendum.
In conclusion, the UK Government are flogging a dead horse, running down the clock and hoping that the squeeze of time will bring support for the Prime Minister’s devastating deal. We can end this today: we can take back control and stop the Prime Minister. We can show leadership and maturity. The people want it. Let us do the right thing, and find consensus to protect the interests of all our citizens.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. A five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches must now apply with immediate effect.

Nicky Morgan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important, groundbreaking and unprecedented debate. I was pleased to be one of the 30 Conservative MPs who helped to secure this debate. I am sorry that it is happening in a way, but the fact that it is happening shows, unfortunately, that the Government’s strategy for getting the withdrawal agreement through this House has not succeeded so far. To be clear, I will vote for that withdrawal agreement if and when it is re-presented to the House, because I think it is the best way for us to leave the EU in an orderly fashion as soon as that is practicable.
I would have spoken to amendment (N), standing in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, but obviously it has not been selected. However, a word at the top of that motion has been used several times. It was used by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and it was used by the SNP leader here, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who has just spoken, although I am not entirely sure that what he asked people to do would fulfil its strictures. The word is “compromise”, and it is an action that absolutely needs to be practised by Members on both sides of the House if today—and potentially Monday—is going to have an effect.
The point is that right hon. and hon. Members should be voting today for what they could countenance, not their preferred option. If we stay in our silos and our trenches, as I have spoken about before, we as a House will not find our way through this, and we will unfortunately fulfil what the Prime Minister said last week, which is that this House cannot find a way through. I think we will not have done our job as parliamentary representatives if that is the case.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) is not in his place. In relation to common market 2.0—I will support that proposal tonight—he talked about a customs union and customs arrangements. One of the advantages of having been involved in the Malthouse compromise talks is that I know that alternative arrangements can be secured to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. What we want on that border is no physical infrastructure, with no customs formalities at the border. With five key changes—there is not time to talk about them today, but there may be in future debates, and I am very happy to talk to any right hon. and hon. Members about those key changes—it would be possible to negotiate such arrangements.
The Leader of the House has talked about any solution being deliverable and negotiable, and having alternative arrangements to avoid the need to be in a customs union is both deliverable and negotiable, because we know the EU has already conceded the principle of them. In the documents tabled by the Government on 11 March, before the last meaningful vote, the EU has clearly said that such negotiations on those arrangements should commence immediately.
Mr Speaker, I heard earlier your strictures to the Government about the test that has to be met for the withdrawal agreement to be brought back to this House. You want to see significant change, and one way of achieving such significant change would be to allow the UK and the EU time to negotiate those alternative arrangements and put them into the withdrawal agreement so that the backstop is superseded. Looking at the names of those who have signed motion (N), we can see that there are Members of this House who are ready to sign up to that as a principle.
In my previous life as a solicitor negotiating mergers and acquisitions deals, I spent many a less-than-happy hour locked in meeting rooms with fellow lawyers and clients and, frankly, we just did not leave until the deal had been done. That needs to happen now to get the backstop replaced and the alternative arrangements secured if that is what Members want.
I will vote for any option that gives a negotiated settlement and leads to an orderly exit from the EU. The question for the House, which may arise after Monday—we shall have to see—is what the Government’s response is and how any Government will implement what the House may have identified as a way forward. There may well be difficult decisions for the Government, but also for the House, about the form of the Government who will take that forward. Will we need even greater cross-party working to arrive at a solution and a Government who can negotiate the outcome with the EU?
Although today is an important step forward, it is really only the start of the process of arriving at a compromise. I entirely agree with the Chairman of the Brexit Committee, who said that we should have started this process two years ago. The country, Parliament and the Government would be in a much happier place.

Yvette Cooper: The debate is proving to be thoughtful and considered. It is the debate that we should have had two years ago. There was an appetite from all parts of the House and from all different perspectives to have such a debate more than two years ago. There was also a spirit across the House—among those who voted leave and those who voted remain—to come together and find a way to make the process work. It is why so many Members from all parts of the House voted for article 50, but also put forward proposals through Select Committees and different debates, and wanted the chance to table amendments. That is why I called for a cross-party commission to oversee the negotiations from the very beginning. Sadly, that did not happen and the Prime Minister did not want to do things that way. That is why we are in this terrible mess and our constituents are tearing their hair out. Whether they voted leave or remain, people are feeling deeply frustrated and let down.
Just as our constituents—employers and trade unions, neighbours and friends, different parts of communities—come together to compromise and sort things out, it is our responsibility to do that now. The proposal to hold indicative votes was important. We will all have to compromise and vote for motions, parts of which we do not necessarily agree with. We might not agree with every single bit of a motion or an idea, but we might think there is the basis for finding some form of compromise.
When the CBI, which represents 190,000 British businesses, and the TUC, which represents 5.6 million British workers, come together to describe a national emergency, there is a responsibility on us to act. They spoke with other members of a national industrial coalition in Parliament this morning, in a meeting that the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) called. They said that a plan B that protects workers, the economy and an open Irish border, commands a parliamentary majority, and is negotiable with the EU must be found. That is why I have put my name to the customs union motion. I have called for that from the beginning and I think it can be the basis of finding consensus and building agreement.
Businesses in our area—our big manufacturers, Burberry and Haribo; local retailers and distributors such as Asda and Teva; small businesses and traders, farmers  and florists—have all warned that they need a deal that avoids border delays, tariffs or extra customs bureaucracy. It is why we heard from the motor manufacturers, the National Farmers Union and the aerospace sector in the meeting this morning. They all called for a customs union, which is at the heart of Labour motion (K) on an alternative Brexit approach. It is also why the TUC argued for the importance of the common market 2.0 approach.
In the motions and in points that Members of all parties have made, there is a range of options that we should consider and that mean we can continue to oppose the chaos of no deal, which would be deeply damaging to all our constituents. I keep very much in mind the words of a friend in Pontefract, who I talked to last week. He is waiting for radiotherapy but does not know whether the treatment will be delayed because no deal could put at risk the supply of the short-life isotopes that are needed for radiotherapy. In his interests and those of patients in all our constituencies, as well as constituents who could be hit by higher food, fuel and utilities prices in the event of a chaotic no deal, we must continue to argue against it.
I take a different approach from that suggested by motion (L), because I think that in those circumstances we should argue for more time with the European Union to try to get a resolution and, frankly, to sort things out.
Whatever the outcome today and on Monday, we are going to have to do two things that the Government have fundamentally failed to do—get clarity on what Brexit means and build consensus. We are talking about constitutional change, and nothing lasts without consensus. On Scottish and Welsh devolution, consensus was built and it lasted. On the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties, consensus was not built and support for them has not endured. The same is true in this situation. Unless clear consensus can be built, public consent or a public vote will be needed through a general election or referendum; otherwise it will not last. It is in all of our interests to build consensus, come together and do what we should have done two years ago.

Andrew Percy: I plan to be uncompromising in my opposition to motions (M) and (L), and then, without a hint of hypocrisy, argue for compromise for where we end up.
We have heard a lot recently about marches. The only march that I am interested in is the march of my constituents to vote in the 2016 referendum, as they were asked to do by this Parliament, and to decide for a final time whether we should remain members of the European Union. We were promised by both sides of the campaign that the decision of the people would be implemented—that is what both the remain and the leave sides said.
The remain side spent the whole campaign telling voters how terribly complex and difficult leaving the European Union was going to be, and yet people still went out to vote, many for the first time in my constituency. I had people stopping me on referendum day, saying, “How do I vote? Where do I go? I want to express my opinion on this question, which Parliament has told me is mine to make and will be implemented.” Now, just because some Members do not like the decision—or,  rather, because we have messed up the whole process of leaving—it is completely unacceptable to turn around, go back to those people and say, “We’ve made such a terrible mess of it that we’re going to go back on all of those promises.”
I am appalled at the way in which many of my voters—70% of them went out and voted leave—have been belittled and besmirched since they took the decision they were asked to make. Their age has been made an issue; how, in a democracy, can age be an issue as to how valuable someone’s vote is? Their educational standards have been made an issue—apparently, whether someone has a degree or not places some sort of value on their vote. They have been told that they live in the wrong part of the country and that they have views that they do not have—people have told them why it is that they took the democratic decision that they had every right to take and that they were promised by this House and by both sides of the campaign would be implemented.

Graham Stringer: rose—

Andrew Percy: I am not going to give way, because I want to stick to the five-minute limit.
It would be appalling to go back and hold a second referendum. A constituent contacted me the other day and said, “Why is it, in this matter of the European Union, that remain has to win only once but leave has to win twice for our decision to be implemented?” What am I meant to say to them? Yes, the issue is complicated and difficult. Some people in this place may even have deliberately made it more complicated than it needed to be so that they could be proven right. Certainly, there has been incompetence that has made it more difficult than it should have been, and I will not say where that incompetence has necessarily come from. It would be appalling to go back to constituents.
I also think it would unleash something pretty dangerous. I am saddened by how certain elements at the extremes of the political sphere have tried to take hold of the issue for their own particular, disgusting brand of politics, which I want nothing to do with. There is no doubt that those people would play a bigger role in a second referendum. It would divide the country, but for what purpose? Current polling shows that it might reverse the result. I think that this is a very dangerous thing that this House should avoid at all costs.
I do not have time to say a great deal about the idea of revocation, which has been suggested by the SNP. I do wonder what its response would have been had it been successful in the Scottish referendum and this House had then decided that it knew better and revoked the result.
Now to the compromise, Mr Speaker. Since I came to this place, my views on Europe have not changed. Some of my colleagues have moved into positions I cannot get my head around, but we need to bring this to a conclusion. We need to do that through a process of compromise. There is a lot in the Prime Minister’s deal I do not like, but I have voted for it and will continue to vote for it. I put my name to the amendments for common market 2.0 and for EFTA. I have concerns about free movement, because some of my constituents clearly have very strong views on that, but this is a way in which we can come together. We can accept the result of the referendum, which was people saying very definitely that they do not  like the political institutions of the European Union. There is a way through this, so the House should look very closely at the propositions on common market 2.0 and EFTA. I will be supporting them. I will be voting for every leave option this evening, because I just want to get this damn thing over with and resolved in line with what my constituents voted for in 2016.
My final comment is this. I hope that we will—I have been a big supporter of yours in the Chair, Mr Speaker—have the opportunity to again vote on the Prime Minister’s deal. I do think that this is an important way of trying to bring this to a close.

Alison McGovern: I do not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, apart from when he said that it should be a priority to get this damn thing over. He made a fair point there.
Today has been a difficult day, but we are all here with the best of intentions: to seek to represent the interests of our constituents and to do right by our consciences. I want to support all Members who are speaking in this debate and all who will participate in this process. They are trying to express what they feel to be best for our country and we must pay due respect to everybody in this debate.
That said, however, I think that this process, innovative though it may be, does represent failure. The fact that we are here is a failure of any party to win the 2017 general election with a clear mandate from the British public as to what Brexit would mean. It is a failure of the response to that general election to be a cross-party agreement about what Brexit would mean that we could all stand by and support. What we are in the business of here is trying to put options before the Government, and demonstrating support for those options and asking them to think again about how they form a coalition of support for the future course in this House.
That brings me to motion (D) on the EEA customs union. Last June, I voted for an EEA-type Brexit. I rebelled against my party’s Whip to do so and I remain glad about that. If we are to Brexit, I think that that is probably the most tolerable form. However, I have a couple of concerns with motion (D). First, we heard from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) about this issue of whether the customs union would be permanent or whether it would be in pursuit of alternative arrangements. I am sorry to disagree with my colleague the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). She and I agree on a great number of things, but I just do not agree that alternative arrangements exist. Therefore, that is not enough for me.

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Alison McGovern: I will not give way, because I do not want to try Mr Speaker’s patience, but I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the process that he has created.
For those who voted leave, too, I worry that a policy compromise is not where they are at. I do not think that the EEA idea, which many of us pursued and voted for previously, is really what people think will be Brexit.  That is partly because of the tone of this debate, but also because those who voted leave do not really accept it as Brexit. I worry about our ability to sell it to them. But I do wish it well, because it is an option that I think could have been, once, a compromise.
That leads me to the following conclusion. Do we need a policy compromise or do we need a process compromise? I have concluded that it is not a policy, but a process compromise that will bring people together. I think the only thing left is to find a reasonable, tolerable and acceptable form of Brexit and ask for it to be ratified by the British public, if they wish to. Those of us who remain confident in the value of our European Union citizenship will campaign for the status quo and those who wish to campaign for Brexit can do so, but I think that the only way to deal with this mess is to find that tolerable form of Brexit and ask the British public if that was what they meant by leaving the European Union. As I said, those of us who still believe in the idea of a European Union that would lift all, include all and create peace in our continent will campaign for that principle.

Greg Hands: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I am going to speak on the perhaps narrow but extremely important topic of the customs union. I will speak specifically against motions (J), in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and (K), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and what I believe to be the seriously defective proposal of a customs union with the European Union while we would not have a seat at the table.
I have given this question a great deal of consideration over the last almost three years, particularly in my two years spent at the Department for International Trade in charge of trade policy. A customs union has its superficial temptations. Obviously, it keeps trade close, although, it is worth pointing out, not necessarily frictionless; we would need the single market as well for that. It avoids having to agree to free movement, it may not need financial contributions, and clearly, it is likely to provide short-term relief for industrial supply chains, but it would be a historic mistake.
Customs unions have been successful in history, but essentially, for countries going in the opposite direction—for countries coming together into a political union. Look at the history of the Zollverein in Germany in the 19th century, which was all part of the process of German unification. Look at the partial customs union, in the name of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1947 or 1949—I forget which—which was a precursor to the EEC and the treaty of Rome. However, we are heading in the opposite direction. This is the wrong compromise, and a customs union would give short-term relief at the cost of long-term pain and a democratic deficit that would grow and grow over the years. I have written articles about this, notably today in The Times Red Box.
Our trade policy would end up being set by others and that would be a historic mistake. I will give four or five quick examples of where this would have a really serious impact on this country. Tariff policy, for example, would be set by the European Union to protect its  products from others coming in and it would not be set in the interests of the UK, which are likely to be different. For example, in the current trade dispute between the United States and the European Union, there are punitive tariffs on bourbon coming into this country. Let us say that there is a future trade dispute between the EU and the US involving Scotch whisky. Obviously, that is not produced in the European Union and there would be no incentive for the EU in that customs union to seek to defend Scotch whisky.
On trade agreements, we have talked before about the Turkey trap. Essentially, if the EU entered into a trade agreement with a third country and the UK were in a customs union, we would have to offer access to our markets but we would not get the reciprocal access to that country in return. That would be a massive democratic deficit. It amazes me that it is the official Labour policy to do this. I remember well the disputes around the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The biggest objections to TTIP came from the Labour side. Now we have a situation where trade policy will be determined by others without even a UK seat at the table. If Labour thought at the time, when we had a seat at the table, that TTIP would lead to US private healthcare companies gaining access to the NHS, what will it be like when we do not have a seat at the table? But that is the official Labour policy.
On trade remedies, I am amazed that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has put his name to one of these motions. It is absolutely incredible. Trade remedies would be conducted by the EU, not this country. They are currently conducted by the EU, but we have a seat at the Trade Council—I was at that seat for a long time—and participate in trade remedies to defend our products. There is no guarantee—in fact, it is highly unlikely—that the EU would do the same, particularly for a product not produced in the EU. When it comes to doing WTO-compliant studies of products, we can guarantee that the studies that would take priority would be those defending the interests of EU members, not those of non-members. I find it amazing.
Finally, on trade preferences and access to the developing world, I find it staggering that the Labour party is proposing ceding control over trade preferences to Brussels without the UK having a seat at the table. That would be unacceptable to my constituents and, I believe, to theirs.

Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), who was a brilliant Trade Minister and resigned on a matter of principle. We here should all remember our principles.
There is an air of almost self-satisfaction and self-congratulation in the House today, as if somehow this is wonderful. I think the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) called it a wonderful freedom. I actually feel very sad about today. We should not be in this position. I could spend the next five minutes talking about who to blame, but there is not much point. We are where we are.
The one group of people we cannot blame, however, are the people of this country who in the referendum voted to leave, thought they would be listened to and  were told by everyone, including the former Prime Minister, that their vote mattered and would be implemented, whatever that decision. Since that day, many people in this House who never wanted us to leave have done all they can in very clever ways—an hon. Member said she had been helped by a senior lawyer to put her motion—to prevent us from leaving.
The public looking in today would say, “What a nonsense. It’s just a lot of waffle. You’re just putting through loads of different things.” In the end, only the Government can make this happen. The Prime Minister could still get her withdrawal agreement through, if she was to recognise that she as a Conservative and Unionist Prime Minister should never have come up with something like the backstop and that the backstop has to be changed. I understand that fundamentally.
The one thing that must not happen today is the people of this United Kingdom being told, “You were too stupid, racist or ignorant to vote the right way, and now we want you to vote again in a separate referendum, because we think you might have changed your mind.” I am incredibly disappointed that my party—a Labour party that saw the majority of its constituencies vote to leave—is whipping Labour Members to vote for a second referendum.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: I am not giving way to the hon. Member.
It is outrageous. Labour supporters and voters who came back to Labour and voted Labour, having dallied with UKIP for a while and believing that Labour meant what it said, would see it as a huge betrayal.

Graham Stringer: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument. Does she agree that the argument being put in the Chamber today that we should give people a second vote because they have changed their mind would lead to a “neverendum”—people could change their mind every year, though all the polling evidence, as presented by John Curtice, is that they have not changed their mind—and that about 98% of the people promoting a second referendum are remainers?

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is quite right. On that basis, we would have to have general elections practically every month. Some people might change their minds the day after they voted. We cannot go down the road.
I have a big remain constituency, but I have made very clear from day one—and I shall have been in this place for 30 years in June—that I want us to get out of the EU. Everyone has known my views, so I have no apology to make for campaigning to leave. A constituent wrote to me saying that he had thought that the manifestos of the Labour party and Conservative party—the two main parties—had said, “We will implement the result of the referendum.” There is nothing difficult about the word “leave”. It is very simple. Members have deliberately made it difficult here.
My constituent wrote:
“Can we the electorate now expect that anything promised in a manifesto is to be honoured, that it should be written into law, that, if you promise a course of action, you must follow through and make it happen.”
Why, he asked, do party leaders order three-line whips so that what they promised in the manifesto can be reneged on?
I think that we are in a very dangerous situation in the House. We are trying to thwart the will of the people, but democracy cannot be compromised. Outside, there is huge anger. We may not see it here in London, particularly in areas where there was a large remain vote, but there is huge anger elsewhere, and it is growing. We have backed ourselves into a hole, and now the only way out is for us either to leave with a World Trade Organisation agreement, or to find a way in which the withdrawal agreement can be changed so that we can accept it—and that means that there must be a change in the backstop.
Nearly all the motions involve compromise. I make no apology for saying that I do not think we should be compromising with the electorate. I mean no criticism of you, Mr Speaker, but it is very unfortunate that motion (E) was not selected, because it is the one motion that we could all have gone along with, if we believed in the referendum result. Anyone who votes to revoke tonight is actually saying, “We do not accept that result— we never did, and we never will.” I hope that that motion will be turned down.

John Bercow: I have now to announce the results of the deferred Divisions held earlier today. I shall do so with the greatest possible dispatch.
The Question relating to relationships and sex education requires a majority of Members of the House and a majority of Members representing constituencies in England if it is to be agreed to. The totals for Members of the House were as follows: the Ayes were 538 and the Noes were 21. The totals for Members representing constituencies in England were as follows: the Ayes were 482 and the Noes were 14, so the Ayes have it.
In respect of the Question relating to animal welfare, the Ayes were 322 and the Noes were 15, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the Question relating to rural development, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 239, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the Question relating to rural development, with, in brackets—I merely remind the House of what it knows itself—the words “Rules and Decisions”, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 240, so the Ayes have it.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). She made some important points about the manifesto promises and about living up to them. There are some other promises that we need to live up to. Time and again, I have heard colleagues criticise the Prime Minister, in the House or on the media, for setting out her red lines and not budging from them. For me, those red lines simply represent the promises that were made before the referendum. It was certainly was not just a binary question about the options of staying and leaving. The question about what leaving meant is critical to this debate, because the promises that Vote Leave set out—I believe the hon. Member for Vauxhall was a member of the Vote Leave campaign—

Kate Hoey: indicated dissent.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Lady shakes her head. I apologise.
Vote Leave, which was the primary advocate for leaving, clearly set out promises to control our borders, control our laws and control our money, while having a free trade agreement. I have read the Vote Leave manifesto several times, and the words were, “There is a free trade area that stretches from Iceland to the borders of Russia, and we will be part of it.” Those were the promises that were made.
I believe the Prime Minister has come back to this House with a deal that meets the promises made; that is what her deal does. There is not a single motion on this Order Paper that lives up to those promises, however; all of them incorporate compromises that move outside those red lines. She has come back with a Goldilocks deal—not too hard, not too soft—but still people will not accept this deal.
If we do not approve the Prime Minister’s deal in the days and weeks to come—hopefully days—I think certain Members in this House might well look back and think, “That was our opportunity and it has now gone.” We should support the Prime Minister’s deal, because I do not think, having a small business background, that it is right that we should think of taking an uncalculated risk with the lives and livelihoods of small businesspeople, who we know could be affected by a no-deal exit. So we definitely need to leave with a deal.
How do we leave with a deal if we do not support the Prime Ministers’ deal? It means we have to remove at least one of the red lines. From my perspective, despite the fact that it would breach the manifesto promises, I would remove the red line on the single market. There will be challenges, certainly particularly between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but most of them are solved by membership of the single market. Some 80% of the border challenges are about the single market. Barnier said it himself: customs checks need not happen at the border.
We can do without the customs union, but we need the single market for regulatory standards, particularly on foods. A humble cottage pie sat on a supermarket shelf in Northern Ireland has passed over that border typically seven times. If there were regulatory checks, they would have to happen every single time according to EU rules; and it makes the rules, and we have been part of that system for 46 years, so we cannot simply say now “We don’t agree with your rules despite the fact that we’ve been happy”—or relatively happy—“to sit within them for 46 years.”
I will support two motions this evening. One is motion (D) brought forward by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). Many colleagues have been big advocates of common market 2.0; it is a free trade agreement. I have concerns about it: I have concerns about the customs union, and the longevity of the customs union and our ability to exit it. Paragraph (1)(c) says we will need to agree with the EU our exit from the customs union, and I cannot see what incentive it would have to let us leave.
If we approved this motion, we would also have to agree lots of things with the Opposition. I do not have an issue about working cross-party on this at all, but I do fear that if we approve this, as we take the legislation forward over the next months and years, Labour Front   Benchers will ask an ever higher price, because there is a political divide between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench.
The other proposal I will happily accept is motion (H). It represents an excellent way forward; it is bold and decisive, and I will support it this evening.

Chuka Umunna: I have five quick points, or thereabouts, to make in five minutes.
First, it is an absolute and utter disgrace that it has come to this—that the Back Benches of this House are having to force the Government to follow a process to reach a decision. The Prime Minister should have been the one sponsoring and initiating this process—that is called leadership—but the reason why time and again she has failed to do so is that she always fails to face down the ideological zealots in her own party.
The Prime Minister has suggested that if what comes out of this process—and I hope we get a majority behind something—is at variance with what she has proposed she may simply ignore Parliament. But this is a parliamentary democracy, and the campaigns to leave the EU were fought in the name of parliamentary sovereignty. Is she seriously saying she can maintain any credibility or authority in her negotiations with the EU Council if she seeks to set her face against the will as expressed by the House through this process?
On the substance of the motions, I will be supporting the people’s vote motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett)—motion (M)—and I commend her for her excellent speech, which explained far better than I could why we should all support the motion. However, I will explain why I personally support it. As a House, we had a duty in the last Parliament to try to square the circle between the promises that were made in the 2016 referendum and what was deliverable. That is why I voted against—against my heart—to invoke article 50 two years ago. However, with every week that has passed, we have seen not only that the campaigns to leave the European Union lied but that they have broken their promises, and the Electoral Commission has confirmed that they cheated, too.
I listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about the importance of delivering on the result of the referendum, but the problem that this Parliament has been grappling with is that it is impossible to deliver on the mythical, fantastical promises that were made back then. In the face of this disaster, and of the catastrophe that we have seen unfolding throughout the negotiations, the last resort is always to invoke the will of the people, but the simple fact is that, ever since that referendum was held, all the signs are that proceeding with this flawed Brexit is far from what this country wants.
After the 2016 vote, you would have thought that support for what had been voted for would have gone up, but almost every poll shows that support for it has fallen. Let us not forget that that referendum was held three years ago, when 37% of registered electors voted to leave. The most recent poll of the British people was held in 2017, when the Conservative hard Brexit was put to the British people and the party of Government lost its majority. If that were not the case, we would not be having this protracted process right now. Above all, I  say to those who talk about the will of the people that democracy is not static; it is a dynamic thing. We in this country did not chose to have a system in which we have one general election and a one-party state and in which we never go back to the people for their view on things as our country and the world change and adapt.
The younger generations of this country have not been mentioned in the debate so far. I listened to the contribution of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and I say to her that the younger people in our borough, which is one of the youngest in the country, will never forgive this Parliament if it seeks to impose this disaster on them. More than 2 million young people have become entitled to vote since that 2016 poll, and we know that an overwhelming majority of them want a say on this process and that an overwhelming majority of them want to keep the current deal and the privileges that the older generations in this country have enjoyed for years.
If in the end we are faced with a cliff edge, with all the catastrophes that have been spelled out in Cabinet documents and knowing what it will mean for people’s jobs and livelihoods, and if we do not have a people’s vote, of course we must do as motion (L) proposes and revoke article 50. No one in this House has a mandate to destroy people’s jobs and livelihoods, but we know that a no-deal exit would do that because the Cabinet has produced its own briefing papers telling us that that is a fact. This is what is at stake here; this is what we have to think about when we make this decision. This is not about us so much as about future generations, and it is important that we do right by them.

John Stevenson: For many months, we have had broadly the same debate on the same subject, with many of the same speakers saying exactly the same things, and what precisely have we achieved? It really is now time for Parliament to find a way forward so that we and the country can return to the daily issues that really matter to people. Let us be honest: our constituents up and down the country are fed up and frustrated, and arguably, so are many Members of Parliament. We as a Parliament really need to step up and make some positive decisions. I therefore welcome today’s debate. We should probably have done this couple of years ago and got it out of the way.
My starting point is very simple: this country voted to leave the EU. I therefore firmly believe that we must leave the EU institutions. What was unclear from the referendum, however, was the nature of our future relationship with the EU. As we have discovered, this means many different things to different people, which has to some extent created the difficulties that we are now in. There is no clear direction. In my view, sadly, this has also been down to a serious lack of leadership by the Government—an unwillingness to bring people together and to reach some sort of compromise. We cannot go on as we are. This country requires some clear direction and, hopefully, we may achieve that today. We will find out this evening what this House is willing to accept, and perhaps something will start to emerge. To some extent, Parliament has already indicated that it does not want a no-deal scenario nor a second referendum, and there has also been no sign that the PM’s deal will actually achieve a majority, but I have  supported it twice and will do so again. Interestingly, and I say this to some fellow Conservative Members, we would be leaving the EU this Friday had the deal passed, so I do have to question their motives.
What should we do? My mother has always remarked that the general view back in the 1970s was that the UK wanted to be part of an economic bloc, not a political union. When I have similar discussions with my mother nearly 50 years on, her view is still exactly the same, and I suspect that that is the view, attitude or outlook of the vast majority of the people of the UK. It is certainly mine.
I am comfortable with the fact that our country will be leaving the EU’s institutions. However, it is in our economic and political interest to be part of a close economic arrangement. For today’s purposes, that would be EFTA and EEA membership under the common market 2.0 approach, which would take us out of the EU but keep us part of the economic market that is Europe. I would have liked to go into the detail of that approach, but that has been well argued by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
We have the opportunity today to indicate to the Government what would command the support of this House. That would apply only if the PM’s deal does not succeed, but I hope that we can find some sort of consensus and a way forward. Leaving the EU is central, and being part of a large economic market is vital, so the obvious solution is an EFTA-EEA arrangement. I will be supporting it later today, and I encourage others to do the same.

Tom Brake: I am happy that we have got this far in spite of the Government’s attempts to derail the process, but I am sad that we are having the first attempt at this sort of dialogue 1,007 days after 23 June 2016.
I am pleased that the tone has been broadly positive, with people setting out their views on the different options before us. However, I must speak strongly against motion (B)—the no-deal option tabled by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)—because anyone who advocates no deal is not participating in rational discourse, as I think he called it. No one advocating no deal could possibly have recently spoken to business, the police, the NHS, UK citizens in the EU, or EU citizens in the UK, because there are no-deal implications for all of them. I therefore hope that no deal gets soundly defeated today.
Turning to motion (D), while a common market 2.0 could be one of the best of the available options, it could also possibly be one of the worst, because it would leave us as rule takers not rule makers. It would also enable those who are antagonistic towards the EU to carry on their campaign on the basis that we would have to sign up to a large part of the EU’s agenda, including making financial contributions, without having any say in the goings-on. In many ways, it probably represents a halfway house before another push to leave the European Union at some point, so I hope that that option will not be supported either.
I am afraid that a number of other motions before us fall into the category of unicorns or wishful thinking. The idea that things can be renegotiated at very short notice in the time that might be available, with new protocols and arrangements found that have not been found in the last two and a half years, is wishful thinking. Of course, anything we do requires the European Union to agree to an extension. Some of the motions, such as the customs union proposal, are not unicorns but are far too unambitious in the arrangement they seek with the European Union.
I will focus on two motions in my last couple of minutes. I am pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) tabled motion (L) with cross-party support, underlining that revoking article 50 remains a possibility for the United Kingdom, and should be a possibility up to the very last moment. We need the ability to block a no-deal scenario, which is what revocation is there for. I am pleased a cross-party effort was involved in the case that went to the European Court of Justice to secure confirmation that the UK can revoke article 50 at any point prior to our departure.
On motion (M), as other Members have commented, I hope the oratory of the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) will have convinced many in this Chamber, and not just those who are already signed up to the idea, to come in behind a confirmatory public vote. As many Members have said this afternoon, and as I am sure others will say before the debate is over, the explanation given a thousand days ago on what would be on offer in our leaving the European Union is clearly not what will be deliverable. If the House decides to proceed with some of the motions today, they are clearly not what was voted on two and a half years ago. Certainly they are not what the Prime Minister says is representative of Brexit, which is why I think this has to go back to a confirmatory public vote. With the level of cross-party support for such a vote, I hope it is something we will be able to proceed with when we get to the next stage.

John Bercow: Order. I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

George Freeman: I start by sincerely thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and other Members on both sides of the House who have worked to make this afternoon possible. They and all of us participating in this debate are doing democracy, this House and the Government a favour, although the Government will not admit it. And they are doing the British people, who want us to find a sensible Brexit solution, a favour.
I was a remain Minister in the last Government, but I have been very clear that we have to honour and respect the referendum result both nationally, in my duty as a Member of this House, and locally in my responsibility and duty to the people of Mid Norfolk, who voted 62% to leave whereas the country voted 52% to leave.
I have also been consistently clear that we have to respect the concerns of the 48% who did not want to leave, the legitimate interests of those citizens who could not vote in the referendum, particularly the young whose future we are shaping and who will have to live with the consequences of our actions, and the legitimate grievances of the 52% who voted to leave. One of the great disappointments of the last two and a half years is the almost shattering silence of those who brilliantly harnessed those grievances to deliver Brexit but who have not spoken about how we tackle them—the feeling of blue-collar job insecurity, the lack of proper local infrastructure, the house dumping and the sense that big government and big debt are working against the localities of this country. That agenda of renewal has to be right at the heart of delivering Brexit.
We were told today that this debate—this hunt for indicative votes—was a constitutional outrage, was a remainer conspiracy and was tying the Government’s hands. All three claims are completely false. First, since when is it a constitutional outrage for this House to control its own business? It has always controlled its own business. To those who say that the Government of the day control the business of the House, I say that, yes, they do, because their Back Benchers, normally, automatically grant them the power so to do. The sovereignty over our time has always, since the civil war, been with this House. To hear my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) pray in aid medieval and Tudor laws against the sovereignty of this House, which I thought he was the greatest champion of, defending an Executive who prefer not to listen, was one of the most extraordinary moments of today.
Secondly, if it is a remainer conspiracy, it is some conspiracy and some set of remainers, because all of us who are working with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) are supporting the Brexit withdrawal Bill. We are not trying to defy Brexit; we are trying to find a way to get it through. Thirdly, the claim that we are tying the Government’s hands is nonsense. This is an indicative vote to help the Front-Bench team to see where, if, God forbid, this is needed, a plan B or some further concession might be found to carry this Bill through the House if, as I hope they do not, some of my hardline Brexit colleagues, who would prefer a no deal to a deal, continue to hold the Government to ransom. Let us reach out across the House to find a Brexit that the whole country can support. Tonight, I will be voting for motions (d) and (h)—for EFTA—and I will be voting against having a second referendum. If this shambles goes on and on, in due course the British people will ultimately decide, probably in a general election. This House has to lift every rock to find a Brexit deal that can get through.
The arguments for EFTA have been beautifully put by others this afternoon, and I wish simply to make two points. The vast majority of my leave voters in Norfolk said, “Mr Freeman, I voted to be in or I want to be in a common market, not a political union.” They were stunned when they heard that the Brexit vote was somehow going to mean an extraction from all of the single market—from all the trade benefits of being in Europe. That is why EFTA is such a powerful solution. It does require free movement, but it is free movement of workers, not of citizens. I argue that it goes with two key reforms. The first is welfare reform, to make it clear  that people who come here to work should not automatically receive the universal benefits that Clement Attlee put in place for those who had fallen on the beaches and paid into our country—they can earn that right. The second is a massive programme of blue-collar skills investment to support those fearing economic insecurity. Mostly, I think EFTA has something that no other solution has: it is a settlement of this question. We would be joining a bloc in Europe whereby, as we joined, we would change the dynamics of Europe. It is a bloc that has been going for 40 years. It is tried, tested and proven, and business can rely on it. I commend it as plan B, should the Government’s deal not go through.

Paul Farrelly: I did not vote for the legislation for the EU referendum, or to trigger article 50 regardless of the consequences, which are now all too plain to see. I made my views clear during the 2017 election and, despite most people’s expectations, I was re-elected. So throughout this, I have been consistent and honest, as has the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). The last vote on the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement was, sadly, the first time that he and I were in a different Lobby. That was not because we do not believe that leaving the European Union is a terrible mistake for our country, but because the Prime Minister has so successfully ticked the clock down that he was just being pragmatic: pass her agreement, then live and fight for the future another day. I respect that decision.
Today, I will also be pragmatic because otherwise this intransigent, deeply flawed Prime Minister may well get a no-deal way, just so that she can wag her finger at the rest of us and say, “I told you so.” Today, we also owe it to the three Ministers, who honourably resigned this week to help to give us this opportunity, to come to a clear decision. We also owe it to the right hon. and hon. Members who have done such sterling work in the national, not personal, interest. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has been truly outstanding, as has the irrepressible right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).
In my local area of north Staffordshire, I now seem to be a lone island of remain in a shifting sea of leave among Members of this House. I certainly dread the thought of a second referendum. Powerful, loud and deep-pocketed voices would try to drown out debate with cries of “Betrayal,” but we have to be brave. In the interests of our country, we should not shy away from giving the people, including young citizens who are 16, a final say on their future. If the House gives a firm steer today, the Government should not only listen but put the matter to a people’s vote, with an option to remain. Should they do so, I will campaign, as we did in Newcastle-under-Lyme in 2016, for a remain result. I will campaign to remain and reform, if necessary, from within—to remain and heed the lessons of history, to keep our place alongside onetime foes who have been for the past 75 years our partners in peace and prosperity on an often-troubled small continent, in a rapidly changing world.
In 2016, we in Newcastle-under-Lyme fought the referendum campaign as hard as any general election campaign. Sadly, that fight was not evident in all parts of our country. It is true that in Newcastle-under-Lyme  people voted by 60% to 40% to leave, but they did not vote for what happens next. In next-door Stoke, the vote was 70% to 30%. That difference shows that, if we make the argument, we can make the difference, particularly when the national result was so narrow, at 52% to 48%. What was missing on the ground in that referendum was the engagement of the Conservative party. Having introduced the referendum, the party of government took no position, in the interests of the party itself, not of our country. The Prime Minister has behaved in the same way ever since, but she gained no majority from her approach in the general election, and she now has no majority in the House for her so-called deal. She stumbles on and on; she is truly the stumbling block.
When we vote later, I hope we will vote to revoke article 50, or to give us the leeway to do so. I urge colleagues not to abstain on motion (L). If we do not vote to revoke, I hope we vote for something pragmatic and for a future that keeps us close to our partners in Europe. When we vote, I will pay great heed to the lead that has been given by true statespeople, such as the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe and for Beaconsfield, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and many others. I hope the Prime Minister will pay heed to them as well. It was simply wrong for her to do what she did last week in that extraordinary broadcast to the country and do down our Parliament when it is full of really good people who are a real credit to our democracy.

Robert Halfon: I passionately believe that we have to follow the 2016 referendum result, even though I voted remain. I voted for the triggering of article 50, to keep no deal on the table, against a second referendum and against a long delay to our exit date. My voting record in Parliament reflects the will of the British people because I feel that anything else would lead to huge mistrust in our political system.
I also believe that Parliament and politicians are becoming toxic. The 17 million people who voted to leave think that the establishment is against them, too busy playing party politics and determined to stop Brexit, so I would not do anything—and I mean anything—that I believe would undermine the decision of the people who voted to leave. I want a strong Brexit, a workers’ Brexit and a Brexit that unifies our country. How do we achieve that? Through Common Market 2.0 and membership of the European Free Trade Association. We would be out of the political union of the EU, out of the common agricultural policy, and out of EU rules on home affairs and taxation. We would be out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. But, as EFTA members, we would have access to the single market, thereby safeguarding our businesses and jobs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) pointed out, it is worth remembering that the British founded EFTA in 1959,  when Harold Macmillan signed the Stockholm convention. The Chancellor at the time, Derick Heathcoat-Amory, said:
“We wanted to be able to share in the prosperity that a great single trading unit would bring with it”.—[Official Report, 14 December 1959; Vol. 615, c. 1057.]
Our joining would be welcomed by member states—by the Icelandic Foreign Minister and by the Norwegian Prime Minister—and it has been reported that the EFTA court president has said that EFTA membership would solve the problem of the Irish backstop.
On freedom of movement, with EFTA membership, we would take back control, because articles 112 and 113 of the EEA agreement would provide us with important safeguards, allowing Britain to
“unilaterally take appropriate measures”
in the event of
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”,
or on grounds of public policy, security or health, in the case of workers.
It is wrong to think that we would be rule takers. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) highlighted that Norway and Iceland alone have derogated from 400 EU Acts between them and how Norway has declined to implement the postal services directive. As members of EFTA, we would be part of the EFTA court, which is a guidance court, not an authoritative court in the same way the European Court of Justice is. The customs arrangement on our side would be temporary until we were able to solve the issue of the frictionless border, and then we would have full EFTA membership and be able to do trade deals, as other EFTA members have done.
The Common Market 2.0 is also a Eurosceptic Brexit. Many Eurosceptics over the past few years have supported the Norway option—even UKIP tweeted in support of it. Dan Hannan has supported EFTA in the past. Douglas Carswell has supported EFTA in the past.

George Freeman: Margaret Thatcher.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend reminds me that Margaret Thatcher said in her 2003 book how supportive she was of EFTA:
“These countries now enjoy free trade with the European Union…They also enjoy the unhindered access guaranteed by the operation of the European Single Market. But they remain outside the customs union, the CAP, the CFP, the common foreign and security policy and the rest of the legal/bureaucratic tangle of EU institutions.”
If it is good enough for the right hon. Lady, it is good enough for me.
In joining EFTA, we do take back control. It is a workers’ Brexit because we keep workers’ rights and protections, such as annual leave, equal pay and maternity leave. It is a take-back-control Brexit because we are out of the political union of the EU, and we safeguard jobs and our economy. Above all, it is a uniting Brexit. It brings together remainers and leavers and keep us in an alliance of democracies.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. After the House has heard from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), I am afraid that it will be necessary to reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes, in an attempt to accommodate as many colleagues as possible.

Phil Wilson: I rise in support of motion (M), in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), which calls for a confirmatory vote by the British people on any Brexit deal. I will begin by saying why I have come to the conclusion that this should be put back to the people. I completely respect colleagues who have a different viewpoint from me, but this is a position that I hold passionately and with great sincerity. I know that those who disagree with me hold their views in the same way. However, I believe in my heart of hearts that the British people have the right to the final say on this country’s future direction.
We already have the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, but today there is the possibility to decide on other options to negotiate with the EU and perhaps what will become another withdrawal agreement or deal. It is clear from the range of motions tabled that Brexit can take many forms, but about three years since the EU referendum, we now know what Brexit will look like if the Prime Minister’s deal gets through. My question is: how does that compare with what was promised in the referendum? Is it what the people voted for back then? The answer to both questions is that we will never know unless we ask them.
My experience is that the concept of Brexit is just that—a concept. It is an idea, a viewpoint, a general principle, such as “Leave means leave”. As those who adhere to the concept of “Leave means leave” try to give it depth or any kind of coherence, it falls apart into different schools of thought. Some actually believe that leave means leave, so they just want to leave. There are those who have given a bit more thought to the concept and belong to the Brexit school that teaches how to leave the EU on World Trade Organisation rules. There is the school that teaches how to do the Norway-plus option and schools that adhere to the customs union and the closest possible relationship with the single market.
There are so many different schools that teach how to do Brexit. To their adherents, they are all legitimate Brexits. They have one thing in common: they want to deliver Brexit, but none of them is Brexit. The only Brexit on offer is the Brexit deal negotiated by the Government with the EU. That now defines Brexit; it is Brexit. However, if after this process today, the House agrees with a different option from the one negotiated with the EU, that becomes Brexit. But the question still remains: how does it compare with the promises made in 2016? The people have the right to decide.

David Tredinnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Wilson: No, I am not going to give way because people are desperate to speak and there is not enough time.
Some say that another public vote would be divisive, but implementing any deal without a final say by the British people is divisive and would be for years to come as people realise that Brexit does not end on the day we may leave the EU, but that it only begins on that day.

Stephanie Peacock: Seventy per cent. of my voters in Barnsley voted to leave and they  would like their point of view put into action. Is this motion really about staying in the European Union, and not about putting the question back to the people?

Phil Wilson: As my hon. Friend knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and I have been working on a compromise so that the people can decide whether the Brexit on offer is the way that they want to go. That option was not there in 2016 and the people have the right to compare the Brexit facts with the promises made back then.
Implementing any deal without a final say for the British people will be divisive, because they will not have had a say on whether they want, for example, to pay £39 billion to the EU. They also will not have been asked whether they want to remain in a customs union, to accept freedom of movement or to be like Norway. In fact, they will not have a say on any of the proposals that could come to fruition. It is not a criticism of colleagues in the House who have put forward such proposals today, but how do we know what the people voted for or will consent to unless we ask them?
It continues to lie heavily with me that on the several occasions in this House that I have asked the Prime Minister whether her deal is better than the one we have now, she could not answer. Maybe the people will disagree with me and agree with the Prime Minister, but it is time to find out. If the people look at the Brexit facts and they compare favourably with what was promised almost three years ago, so the Brexit deal passes—fine, let us see the deal implemented. Under our proposal, the deal would be given passage through this House with the proviso that it goes to the people in a confirmatory ballot; if the deal is agreed to, it is implemented. That would then put an end to any idea of a third or a fourth referendum. In fact, there is a strong argument that the process that we are undertaking now should have taken place before the referendum in 2016, with the facts before the people, instead of promises that will never materialise.
Some say that what we are promising is undemocratic because the people have already had their say. Yes, they have. But they did not have a say on the current Brexit deal—or, in fact, on any Brexit deal—and they should. When I suggest that the electorate should be given the final say on what the deal should be, some people react as if the only ones who would be allowed to vote are those who voted to remain. People should have the right to changes their minds—not just from leave to remain, but from remain to leave. I do not believe that MPs in this House today, who are elected, in theory, for five-year terms, should have the final say on an issue that will affect our electors, and their families and descendants, for years to come. If that were to happen, it would not reflect well on the establishment, however it is appointed or elected.
The final say should not be given to Members of this House exclusively. The final say belongs to the people. Brexit started with the people and it should end with the people.

James Cartlidge: Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. I am very much used to the time limit changing just as I rise to speak.
I campaigned to remain, but I promised my constituents that I would accept the result of the referendum that my colleagues and I voted into law. In my view, the best deal to do that is undoubtedly the one negotiated by the Prime Minister, with all the difficult squaring of circles that it has had to go through. I sincerely hope that we do agree to that deal. If we do not, we have to accept that, given no deal has been defeated twice in this place, we must have a deal that flexes one of the red lines—the single market and the customs union. I explained on Monday that the issue of free movement should not be as big a concern, because our immigration numbers will be the same; people will just come from further afield. The key issue is trade. If we go down the EFTA/EEA route, we would be outside the customs union, but we would keep the EU free trade deal, which is the single market.
If we were outside the EU but in the customs union, there would be a profound problem. What would happen when we wanted to do a trade deal with a country that the EU did not wish to conclude one with or was unable to do that? This is fundamental. Imagine if it were a key economic bloc such as China. If we wanted to negotiate a trade deal with the Chinese, we would have to wait for the EU to conclude its trade deal, which would take much longer and be far more complicated. The Swiss, whose fine EFTA country is in the single market but outside the customs union, negotiated, as long ago as 2013, an excellent trade deal with the Chinese that has given them billions of pounds-worth of trade in industrial goods and very strong access in services. This is the key point. There are many good reasons why we as a country could negotiate a trade deal with China that the EU could not, one of which is that we have a profound offer in services that is very different from the overall EU mix.
I think personally that we have to say to our people what are the benefits and opportunities of leaving. One of them must be to live up to our great history and heritage as the home of capitalism and free trade, and go back to trading around the world but with a close relationship with the European single market to fall back on. That works brilliantly for Switzerland and for Norway. In essence, it means leaving the political union and staying in the economic one. It is a very good deal. It is not as good as the Prime Minister’s deal, for all the reasons I have explained in previous speeches. However, at this moment in time, we have to decide whether we really want to deliver Brexit or not. If we are going to do so, and if it is not through the Prime Minister’s deal, which I hope we will vote on on Friday, there must a compromise, and the best one is that which plays to our strengths as a great free-trade nation.

Anna Soubry: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).
I shall be voting for motions (M) and (L) for the excellent reasons that the proposers of both those motions have made very clear to the House. What a great debate we have had, and has it not been so revealing, so comforting and so good to see and hear how many hon. Members, notably on the Conservative Benches, have  changed their minds? Not only have they changed their minds—they are tonight going to change the way that they have voted in the past. I do not know, Mr Speaker, if you have had the benefit of looking at the great names that have been added in support of motion (D): the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles); the right hon. Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon); the hon. Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman); and the right hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I could go on and on.
All those Members will be supporting common market 2.0, the single market and the customs union—something that over the past two years many of us, on many occasions, have risen to speak on, argue for and vote in favour of. That was at considerable personal and political cost, but we made the case, and, time and again, other hon. Members, notably those on the Conservative Benches, argued and voted against it. But, joy of joys, tonight they finally see the merits of that solution to this great Brexit dilemma, and indeed, as I say, they are going to change their votes.
We also hear tonight that there is every chance that the Prime Minister’s deal may indeed get through, so this could end up as an otiose exercise, as we lawyers call it. We now learn that hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who, on previous occasions, have voted against the Prime Minister’s deal, not once but twice, are now going to—guess what?—not only change their minds, but will, too, have and enjoy the privilege of changing their vote to support the Prime Minister.
What a profound irony—and, some would say, a disgrace, verging on hypocrisy. Hon. and right hon. Members expect and will enjoy the right to change their mind and their vote, but not allow the people of this country the same right. That is why I shall be supporting the motion to allow whatever we agree and decide on to go back to the British people. They are entitled also to change their mind and their vote, especially when they see that, whatever way you cut it, Brexit will make our country worse off. And if it turns out that the majority do not want Brexit, it will not be on my conscience.

Chris Philp: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), although I was disappointed that she did not mention how many times she thought the electorate could change their mind—does she think it should be two, three or four times?

Anna Soubry: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman this. We have a referendum with, on the ballot paper, whatever deal we settle on and the option of remain. If people vote for the Prime Minister’s deal or whatever, that is it, and if they vote remain, end of—we stay in the EU.

Chris Philp: That was not the case that the right hon. Lady made. She made the case that people should be able to change their mind repeatedly, which implies that she would support any number of referendums.
I rise to speak against motion (D), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), on common market 2.0, and a similar motion, (H), in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), on membership of the European economic area. I strongly oppose those motions for two reasons. First, they both entail signing up to full single market rules. The House of Commons Library published a paper only yesterday that says on page 19:
“EEA membership… involves a range of obligations, including implementation of EU rules relating to the Single Market”,
with no decision-making role, other than being “consulted”. For a great British institution such as the City of London or our entire industrial economy, our merely being consulted on the rules that govern them simply is not good enough.
Secondly, there is the question of financial contributions, which was a controversial part of the referendum campaign. Another House of Commons paper published on 21 December found that Norway pays per capita contributions that are around half our current level—so, one would assume, about £5 billion per year. The promise made to the British people about saving money would not be delivered in either common market 2.0 or as a member of the European economic area.
We then come to the question of free movement, which was another contentious issue during the referendum campaign. Membership of the single market entails full free movement. Some Members have referred to various brakes or safeguards in the European economic area agreement. Specifically, article 112 says that any such safeguards must be “restricted” in their “scope and duration”. Article 114 says that if a state, like the UK, were to use those safeguards, other member states could take “rebalancing measures” against them, meaning that some of the benefits of single market membership could be withdrawn. No country other than Liechtenstein, in very limited circumstances, has ever taken advantage of those provisions.

James Cartlidge: Switzerland.

Chris Philp: Well, Switzerland is currently engaged in a running battle with the European Union and has been unable to implement the result of its own 2014 referendum on free movement.
In the 54 seconds remaining, let me briefly turn to the question of trade deals, which relates only to motion (D) and not motion (H). Under the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, during our customs union membership—this would probably apply to the Labour party’s official proposal as well—we would be bound by all trade agreements done by the European Union. We would be compelled to follow them, without the right of veto that we currently enjoy, and we would be prevented from doing any free trade deals of our own. That would be greatly to our disadvantage and would exclude countries such as India, China and the USA. For those reasons, I will be opposing motions (D) and (H).

Lucy Powell: As others have said, this debate should have happened a long time ago. Unfortunately, in the meantime, positions have become more entrenched and the country has  become more divided. I hope that today, the healing process can begin. I want to say at the outset that each one of us has thought deeply for a long time. These are difficult issues, and we have all made balanced judgments from a place of good intent. We should respect where others have arrived at, even though some of us have arrived at different places.
We also have to remember that nothing about this debate is perfect. There is no easy solution, and there is no panacea. Every single thing before us has upsides and downsides, and I am not going to pretend any differently about what I want to support this evening. We need some honesty in the debate, and we need some balance too. The only thing that is absolute is that compromise is absolutely necessary, and we must have that in everything we do. My other criteria for looking at the things before us today is what is actually doable and achievable because, for too long in this debate, we have been chasing unicorns around that unicorn forest.
Although I have arrived at the view that, on the balance of upsides and downsides, common market 2.0 for me offers a balance I can live with, I will be voting for other things this evening. I think today is about keeping as many options as possible on the table—in the forest, or whatever metaphor hon. Members wants—not narrowing them down. In brief, the upsides of common market 2.0 for me are that they are about leaving the EU in economically the best possible way of doing so—the single market is the key element, not the customs union—and we can do it quickly as well. There are of course downsides: there are still issues about freedom of movement and whether we are a rule taker. As ever in this debate, there are shades of grey; it is not all just black and white.

Gareth Snell: I want to place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). While many in this place have retrenched to process issues and talked about procedures in the House, the two of them have actually taken the bull by the horns and looked at issues that can resolve this situation practically. I have some concerns about what she is proposing, but she has at least proposed something substantive, and I thank her for that.

Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend very much. As my mum always says, “Those who do nowt do nowt wrong, do they?” We always get criticised for having a position, rather than for not doing so. As I say, I respect the many people across the House who have worked in cross-party teams to try to do that.
Finally, on the issue of the second referendum, for me this is a separate question. We have to find something that we can put to the public if that is what this House decides. We still need to determine what the best Brexit looks like which, if the House wanted, we would put back to the people. We cannot have remain versus remain on the ballot paper, as I know some would want, and I do not think we can have remain versus leave in a form that is undefined. Regardless of what people’s views are about a second referendum, I just implore those in all parts of the House to agree on what Brexit may look like, including in the eventuality of a second referendum.

Giles Watling: Thank you, Mr Speaker —brevity, brevity.
I sincerely hope that we will have some clarity at the end of this process, and that it will move us closer to the Brexit I was sent here from Clacton to deliver. From my travels across my constituency, I know that the vast majority of my constituents just want this whole agonising process to be brought to a conclusion with a Brexit. Yet because of the constraints applied by this House, the deal on the table is the best way to deliver that Brexit, despite my serious concerns about the backstop and the continuing legal jurisdiction of the ECJ. I now feel that we have to vote for it, and head off the possibility of no Brexit at all.
The political scenery has changed dramatically, and this House has become more assertive by taking no deal off the table. There is also the emerging threat of an extremely soft or painfully slow Brexit. Moreover—this is becoming apparent now—as the House begins to assert itself, the Brexit deal we now have on offer is as good as it is ever going to be. There is not, and there never will be, a perfect deal; there is only a pragmatic outcome. By failing to move beyond this point at all and by failing to compromise and start on the road to Brexit, we are failing to satisfy anyone who voted to leave. We are also failing to satisfy those who voted to remain, and that includes me, but my position fell with the result of the referendum.
In the light of the instruction I got from people in Clacton to deliver Brexit, I would ask my colleagues if they want to be the ones that make Brexit worse, or even lose it entirely, when they could be the ones to deliver a good form of Brexit after all this pain and division—a Brexit that delivers on the promises. No doubt some will remain stubborn and push hopelessly for an unattainable no deal, but they fail to recognise that no matter how much they may wish for it, there is not a majority for no deal in the House and there has not been since the 2017 election. If colleagues reject that point and doggedly reiterate the Prime Minister’s line that no deal is better than a bad deal, that does not change the fact that supporting no deal is flogging a dead horse. A deal is all we can possibly have.

David Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about motion (M) on a second referendum? What would he do in my constituency, which voted out by 60% to 40%? Does he understand my constituents’ concern that a second referendum would be the end of democracy?

Giles Watling: I agree with my hon. Friend. A second referendum would be even more divisive than the position in which we find ourselves.
Although no deal is the legal default, we are in the weird position that it is no longer possible. Events have overtaken dogma and stubbornness. I will therefore support the deal in future votes in a spirit of pragmatism and because of my desire to deliver Brexit for my constituents. I will vote to support no deal today, again for my constituents, but to colleagues who are still voting for no deal in the vain hope of reaching that outcome, I say that the House will not allow it. It is time to get serious about the deal in its current form because all the other options are far worse than the one on offer.
I will not go through all the motions, but I am looking for pragmatic and realistic options. I want to get the deal over the line for the good of the country in the future.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling). He will not be surprised that I profoundly disagree with his viewpoint, but it is good that the House has finally had the chance to debate the full range of options.
I will vote with most enthusiasm tonight for motion (M), which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) tabled. I voted to respect the outcome of the referendum in 2016 and trigger article 50, but in the past two and half years, so much more has become clear about the detail of the real impact of Brexit on our constituents and so many of the promises of those who campaigned to leave have been shown to be untrue.
I was proud to be one of 1 million who marched in London on Saturday. It should not only be the 650 of us in Parliament who get to have the final say on which Brexit option is decided. Given that Brexit has such huge implications for our country, surely it is only right that once a deal has been finalised, the people should have the final say.
I will vote for motion (L), which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) tabled, to strengthen the protection against a no-deal Brexit for our country.
However, as a House of Commons, we have a duty to try to help the Prime Minister and the Government to move on from the deal that she has been peddling so unsuccessfully for so long. The dilemma for the House is how close or how distant a relationship we want with the EU. Every independent economist suggests that the more distant our relationship with the EU in the future, the greater the adverse economic impact. For me, that means we should opt for the softest Brexit possible, staying in the customs union and the single market.
The vast majority of jobs for my constituents and others depend on the services sector and every independent economist suggests that there will be a huge impact on our country in loss of services business if we leave the single market. For that reason alone, we should stay in the single market.
Trade remains the last great unicorn to be fully taken down. I do not believe that there will be better trade deals on offer after Brexit. We have got good trade deals as a result of membership of the EU and I look forward to supporting motion (M).

Peter Aldous: What we are doing this evening is what we should have done a long time ago, at the outset of this process. Something of the magnitude of Brexit has never been attempted before anywhere else in the world. We should have put down the foundations before laying the bricks.
That said, my favoured course is to support the withdrawal agreement that the Government have negotiated, and if there is another vote on it I shall support it again.  It delivers Brexit in an orderly, non-disruptive way, and it provides the framework for revitalising the Lowestoft and East Anglian fishing industry.
In considering the various alternatives that have been suggested, I am mindful of the need to respect the 2016 referendum and I shall therefore not be voting for a second referendum or revocation of article 50. I have listened to impassioned and persuasive arguments for why we should do so, but I sense that if we go down that road we will leave a lot of people all around the country very puzzled, bewildered and, I am afraid, angry.
As a second option to the withdrawal agreement, I believe that we should consider motion (H), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It would involve the UK remaining a member of the European economic area and returning to the European Free Trade Association, which we invented in 1959 and which involves no customs union and no backstop. That delivers on the referendum result, as the European Communities Act 1972 would be repealed on time, without an extension, and we would legally leave the EU. It also has the advantage, from my perspective, that we would leave the common fisheries policy sooner and would be able to implement the emerging policy.
With regard to leaving without a deal, I have in the past week canvassed local business, trade associations and representatives for their positions. They include businesses from the haulage, oil and gas, packaging, leisure, farming and food processing sectors, as well as health providers and utility companies. They are all concerned about the impact on their businesses of leaving the EU on WTO terms and, by implication, the potential negative knock-on impact both on those who work for them and on those to whom they provide goods and services.
In conclusion, the current logjam has been going on for far too long. We need to remove the uncertainty as quickly as possible and get on with delivering Brexit in an orderly way.

Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to follow my good friend the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).
It is extraordinary, is it not, that we are here today? I, like others, welcome the constructive tone struck by many in this debate, but it is 27 March and we have known for so long that the end date was 29 March. This kind of debate should have been held so much earlier; to start it today is, I am afraid, a mark of failure for the whole process.
I am not one of those who can say that I have changed my mind through this process. I represent one of the most remain constituencies in the country, and I am a passionate remainer myself. I have found that difficult at times, because I recognise that many of my colleagues are in a much more difficult position.
I caution colleagues slightly about the policy discussion we are having today. Although we may well be able to move towards a rational compromise, I have wondered throughout whether that is really where many members of the public are. If I needed any proof of that, when I floated the idea of revocation in this Chamber some six months ago, it was seen, to be frank, as a bit of an outlier positon. However, if I needed any confirmation  of that position, it is the extraordinary strength of the petition that has been running over the past few weeks.
I am a member of the Petitions Committee and it is unfortunate that aspersions were made earlier today on the veracity of that petition. The staff work very hard. To be frank, if Russian bots were crawling over parts of one of the campaigns during the referendum, I think we can send a strong message that they are not going to be running over the parliamentary petitions website, because we are very careful. Whatever one feels about the issue, there is strength of feeling: 27,000 people in my constituency—almost one third of the electorate—have taken the trouble to make their point. I would say that for them, remain means remain. I fear that some of the compromise positions will not satisfy people elsewhere. That leaves me to conclude, having looked at some of the intermediate options—I can see their merits from a policy perspective—that we have people who feel passionately about this issue on both sides.
How do we resolve that problem in a democracy? Frankly, I think there is only one answer—I thought the most powerful contribution this afternoon came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett)—which is to make that plea to reconcile our differences by doing it in the way that we do best in this country: to have a sensible discussion, now that people actually know the facts. Goodness, we all know much more about all this than we did two or three years ago. I do not think we should be afraid of asking the people if they want a final say. Give it to them and they will tell us what they think.

Paul Williams: Every one of us in this place has a firm duty to our constituents. We have a duty to protect their security and their livelihoods. We have a duty to make the best decisions for our country, and we have a duty to approach this whole process in good faith and with an open mind. This House is deeply divided, but—it is important to say this—no matter our view, all of us are acting in a way that we believe best serves our constituents and our country.
When I look at the options before the House this evening, Mr Speaker, it is obvious that there are no perfect solutions. Everything we do from now on will involve compromise. The public, like this House, are deeply divided. In a democracy, when there is division and when there are trade-offs to be made, we do not shut down the conversation. That has never been what our country does. The healthiest way to repair any kind of relationship where both sides have to stay together is to carry on talking. There is nothing threatening to democracy about testing the public’s opinion. A healthy and vibrant democracy is supposed to be loud. It is supposed to discuss, to debate, and, yes, to vote. The only threat to democracy is if we allow fear and intimidation to stop this debate. That must never happen.
No Member of this House should be scared of doing the right thing today. That is the job we were all elected to do. I sometimes get messages calling me a traitor, a backstabber, an enemy of the people. Colleagues across the House receive much more vitriol than me. I know there is frustration out there, but our job as MPs is to look at the evidence and make a rational, balanced and  objective assessment. My assessment is that Brexit is far more complicated than anybody expected and we now have a duty to bring the public back into our discussions as we reach this vital, difficult stage in the process. They are entitled, in a healthy democracy, to give their informed consent to any deal agreed by Parliament.
This is a moment when the House must rise to meet the challenge in front of us: the task of uniting our divided country. So far, we have not managed that. This evening, we have the opportunity to do our country proud, to do what we know is right and to give the public the chance to help us fix this. That is why I will be supporting motion (M) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett).

Ruth Cadbury: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams).
I campaigned to remain not because I thought the EU was perfect, but because I inherently believe that it is better, in a 21st century world dominated by a few large blocs, to be a member of the club of our nearest neighbours, the largest and therefore the most powerful trading bloc in the world. Through our membership, we are influencing from within, sharing the costs, trading in goods and services without friction, keeping the peace on our continent and having the clout to negotiate.
I am old enough to remember, even though I was too young to vote, what being British was like before the UK joined the common market: visas to go on holiday across the channel and currency restrictions; British construction workers having to travel for work in Germany to support the German construction boom. Right now, as of this week, we get full access to EU markets, supporting world-class manufacturing jobs in Britain. We get the right to travel, work, live and love in 27 other EU countries, a right that we and millions of people, particularly those under 18 in 2016, will lose. We are already seeing the impact of the uncertainty of Brexit on a whole range of businesses in my constituency, including the growing creative sector. As night follows day, before too long we will see cuts in tax revenues leading to yet more cuts to public services, whichever party is in government.
The referendum was advisory—a simple yes or no—with little information and many lies. I voted against triggering article 50 because I felt that we should have sorted out the nature of our leaving the EU before triggering the two-year clock, so that we did not do what we are doing this week and next, scrabbling around to avoid crashing out. Let us not forget the economic and reputational consequences for this country of triggering article 50.
Many people challenge me on the manifesto phrase about respecting the results of the referendum. Well, I do respect the reasons why most people who voted leave did so—because of the lies, from which the authors distanced themselves immediately afterwards. I will be voting for motion (M) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) for the simple reason that any deal passed by this House—the Labour position, Norway, a customs union or the PM’s deal—needs to be fully and publicly ratified  by the people, not in another advisory vote, as was the case in 2016, but this time in a binding vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) said, people should have the chance to change their mind from leave to remain, or indeed, from remain to leave. Although my constituency voted to remain, I would probably take the same position even if my constituency was a leave-voting area because of my duty to my country.

Wera Hobhouse: In 2016, 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU. Today, after almost three years, we still have at least six different Brexit versions in front of us. None of them was on the ballot paper for the people to vote for in 2016. Each defender of their Brexit option makes some claim that it represents the will of the people. That is why we need to test the will of the people in 2019 and to give them a specific Brexit option versus the option of staying in the EU.
Personally, I am pretty agnostic about what is a better or worse Brexit option. All I want to see as an outcome of today’s exercise is that whatever Brexit option we decide on here is put back to the people. The people might reconfirm that they wish to leave the EU, but in 2019, everybody who wants to leave the EU will know exactly what they are voting for rather than there being a long wish list of hopes, aspirations and undeliverable promises. Yes, referendums are difficult, but they are democratic. We should not be threatened by those who tell us that they will riot in the streets if there is another referendum.
On Saturday, between 1 million and 2 million people marched peacefully in the streets of London—young and old, from all backgrounds, from different political parties and none. Do they not count? Are they not the real British people, determined but polite? Does Parliament listen to people only when they throw stones or send us death threats? “Put it to the people” was a peaceful ask from the biggest march so far this century. Let us hold the 2019 people’s vote. Whatever Brexit solution finds a consensus in this Parliament must go back to the people. The people must finish what the people started.

John Bercow: I was looking for a particular Member, but he beetled out of the Chamber at an inopportune moment. If he had been in the Chamber at an opportune moment, I might have invited him to address the House, but he has missed his opportunity.
In accordance with the Order of the House of today, we will shortly proceed to vote on the motions I have selected. Voting forms are available from the Vote Office and in the Division Lobbies. The forms list the title and letter of the selected motions. The text of the motions is on the Order Paper. As I indicated at the outset, Members with surnames from A to K should hand in their forms in the Aye Lobby at the relevant desk for their surname, and Members with surnames from L to Z should hand in their forms in the No Lobby at the relevant desk. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. The voting period will begin at 7 o’clock and last for 30 minutes. I suspend the House accordingly for that period.
Sitting suspended.

EU EXIT DAY AMENDMENT

Robin Walker: I beg to move,
That the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.
First, I express my gratitude to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its report today. I do of course regret the necessity to have to introduce this instrument and would prefer that we were leaving the EU with a deal at the end of this week. I have voted on two occasions for that outcome, but the House has not. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made it clear in the debate on 14 March that the Government would accept the will of the House and seek an extension if that was what Parliament voted for. Parliament then voted by 412 to 202 to approve a motion to seek to extend article 50. An extension has therefore been agreed with the EU and the Government are now committed to implementing it in domestic law.

Mark Francois: I want to ask the Minister about a technical point. The operative paragraph of the explanatory notes that accompany the SI says that, if the House of Commons does not approve the withdrawal agreement by 11 pm on 29 March 2019—the so-called relevant time—the treaties will instead cease to apply at the earlier date of 11 pm on 12 April 2019.

Ed Vaizey: He can read!

Mark Francois: Thank you, that is very kind. I do my best, Ed. Thanks mate.

Ed Vaizey: You are doing well.

Mark Francois: Great. I will carry on then.
The Government were meant to lay a commencement order to allow us to leave. As I understand it, they never laid such an order—I do not know whether they were ever going to. Does this SI now have the effect that the commencement order would have had? In other words, if we approve the SI and have not approved the meaningful vote, would we then leave at 11 pm on 11 April, without the need for a separate commencement order? I think the Minister understands the question.

Robin Walker: I do understand my right hon. Friend’s question. The answer is that a commencement order would have to be laid before the point at which we left, whatever that leaving date was. I do not think it is necessarily directly relevant to the debate on this SI, because this SI does not set the date on which we leave the European Union but reflects the date agreed in international law.
As the House will be aware, the decision adopted by the European Council, agreed to by the UK, provides for two possible durations, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) just pointed out: should the House approve the negotiated withdrawal agreement this week, the extension will last until 22 May; if the House does not approve the withdrawal agreement, the extension will last until 12 April.

Edward Leigh: What would be the effect if the House rejected the SI tonight? We are constantly told that international law always trumps domestic law, so what would be the effect? Is there any point in voting for or against the motion, because it really has no effect at all? International law will always trump what we do, and in that sense parliamentary democracy is inferior to international law. Is that correct?

Robin Walker: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, but there would be a profound effect as a result of the rejection of this SI, and I shall come to that later in my speech. It is important to state that, were we to reject this SI, it would leave the UK statute book in a mess, so I do not think that is a good course of action.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister referred a moment ago to the House passing the withdrawal agreement by this week. We obviously heard Mr Speaker’s ruling earlier and rumours abound that the Government intend to introduce the withdrawal and implementation Bill on Friday. Could he confirm whether that is correct and whether it would have any provisions to alter section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which is of course intimately tied up with this statutory instrument?

Robin Walker: It will be a matter for the Leader of the House to announce business, not for me. I heard, as I am sure the whole Government heard, the Speaker’s ruling. We take careful note of what the Speaker says and of course we will act with due respect to that. However, I hope that the House has the opportunity to consider the only withdrawal agreement that has been negotiated and agreed to by the EU.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robin Walker: I will make a bit of progress. The regulations cater for an extension in either scenario by redefining exit day to ensure the date and time specified in the definition is 11 pm on 22 May or 11 pm on 12 April, depending on whether the House approves the withdrawal agreement. In either of those extension scenarios, we will not be required to participate in European parliamentary elections. This vital instrument has the simple but crucial purpose of making sure that our domestic statute book reflects the extension of article 50 agreed with the EU on Friday 22 March.

John Redwood: Could the Minister explain this? I think the UK Government wanted 30 June but that was scaled back to 12 April. Could he explain why the EU thought that it was much better to have a short period? As someone who does not want such a period at all, I obviously find myself on the EU’s side, rather than the Government’s.

Robin Walker: I suspect that my right hon. Friend may well welcome the chance of that shorter period, but I think the answer is simply that that was the decision reached by the European Council and agreed by the Council and the UK.
Put simply, the instrument does not set the date of our departure, which has already been agreed. It reflects that in domestic law. While the instrument itself is straightforward, its effect will apply across the domestic  statute book, so it is important that I set out the details of what it will do—this comes to the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I have explained this to my ministerial counterparts in the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly, setting out why the UK Government are taking the instrument forward.

Richard Bacon: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) did not ask the Minister to restate the position. He asked why the European Council went for the earlier date, rather than 30 June. Why did it do that?

Robin Walker: My understanding is that that was the Council’s view of when we would have to give notice that we would be holding European elections, if we were staying in for longer, and that is why it set that date as the date by which we would have to have made our mind up as to whether we are leaving. But that is for the European Council to determine. I am not a spokesman for it.
Currently, major changes to our domestic statute book reflecting our exit from the European Union are due to take effect on exit day, which is defined in the EU withdrawal Act as 11 pm on 29 March, despite the extension terms that have been agreed at international level. These changes apply across a huge number of policy areas, from emissions trading to Europol. All these changes are designed to ensure that our statute book works when we leave the European Union, and all are due to take place on exit day. This definition has effect across the whole UK statute book. Now that an extension to article 50 has been agreed in EU and international law, we need to amend that date to reflect the new point at which the EU treaties cease to apply.

Angela Eagle: Has the Minister learned any lessons about putting exact times and dates on the statute book in primary legislation just so that his Prime Minister can blackmail her own party?

Robin Walker: The hon. Lady makes a political point, which is not particularly appropriate for a debate on technical legislation. The instrument has been laid under the EU withdrawal Act to do just what I said. Section 20(4) of the Act contains a power to amend exit day through a statutory instrument.

David Jones: The Minister mentioned that the European Council agreed an extension. There was a resolution of this House to seek to agree an extension, which I suggest amounts to an authority to negotiate. Has he been advised that that also amounted to an authority to conclude an extension? Did he get legal advice on that point?

Robin Walker: I know that my right hon. Friend is a keen legal eagle, as well as an experienced former Minister in this Department, but of course the Government are confident of their legal position in the decisions that they have taken.
The power was specifically included in the EU withdrawal Act because parliamentarians envisaged a situation in which extension could be required. As the then Under-   Secretary said, the Government had had discussions with Back Benchers and were grateful that they tabled their amendments, which
“provide the Government with the technical ability to amend the date, but only if the UK and the EU unanimously decide to change the date at which treaties cease to apply to the UK, as set out in article 50.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1155.]

Bill Cash: Will the Minister report to the House the outcome of this afternoon’s meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? Did the Committee consider the question of vires, as is within its Standing Orders?

Robin Walker: I did not catch the whole of my hon. Friend’s question, but I am confident that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has had a chance to look at the matter, and I welcomed its report at the beginning of my speech.
Let me be clear with the House that the power in the EU withdrawal Act can only be used to redefine exit day to the new day and times that the treaties will cease to apply in the UK. To specify any other day would not be a legal use of that power. It is critical that the House approves this instrument for the simple reason that the extension of article 50 has been agreed and is therefore legally binding in international law.
I understand that some Members have been of the view that we are still set to leave the EU on 29 March, but that is not legally the case. Owing to the agreement between the UK and the EU to extend article 50, the UK will remain a member state of the EU until at least 11 pm on 12 April as a matter of international law. If this instrument were not to pass, therefore, it would not change that fact, but it would lead to confusion across our statute book from 29 March.

Peter Bone: I have this wonderful machine that says we are now two days, four hours, 17 minutes and 12 seconds away from coming out of the EU; this is a pretty good machine, actually. Is not the truth of the matter that, if we reject this SI tonight—I hope we do by a big margin—we will have come out in domestic law and we will be in breach of an international treaty for about two weeks, and that is why the Minister needs to get this through?

Robin Walker: I simply do not share my hon. Friend’s understanding or view of the matter. I respect his point of view, but I am afraid that he is not right on the legal facts.
A large volume of EU exit legislation, preparing the statute book for the moment EU law ceases to apply, is due to enter into force automatically on exit day. Without this instrument in place, there would be a clash in our domestic law whereby contradictory provisions would apply—both EU rules and the new UK rules simultaneously. In some cases, new UK rules would replace EU rules prematurely.
We estimate that tens of thousands of amendments to our domestic legislation will be made in the light of EU exit. These include changes that relate to the sharing of information, reporting requirements placed on businesses and public institutions, and the role of the European Commission in issuing licences and certificates. For example,  let us take the amendments relating to the rights of lawyers to practise in the UK. If these regulations come into force on 29 March, EU lawyers who are not registered European lawyers immediately before exit day are at risk of committing a criminal offence if they continue to provide particular legal services in the UK. Other examples include UK operators being unable to comply with the EU emissions trading scheme and having to surrender their emissions allowances early, and the risk that firms stop trading to avoid legal breaches given their uncertainty about when new customs, excise and VAT regimes would kick in.
There are examples from across the statute book, but it is clear that without this instrument there would be significant confusion and uncertainty for businesses and individuals on 29 March.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is making the strongest possible case that this statutory instrument is important to ensure that our reputation across the world for being a country that is reliable to deal with, and whose obligations in international law are the same as our domestic legislation, remains intact.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I have always agreed that we need to do this process properly and that is what this SI is all about.

Sylvia Hermon: Is not the reality of the situation that, while we affectionately refer to the withdrawal deal as the Prime Minister’s deal, it has been signed by 27 other EU member states? It is signed and it is not going to be unsigned: the deal is done. There is only one deal and that is the Prime Minister’s deal. The extension that we need to vote for tonight is very short. We absolutely have to get behind this Brexit deal, get it through, get the implementation period and move on. The deal is not going to be reopened by the other 27.

Robin Walker: As I often find, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady. That is not the sole point of this SI, of course, because it allows for two specific scenarios, but—

Christopher Chope: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can explain why, when his junior Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), was asked in the House on Friday whether
“the article 50 period will only be extended if the House votes for a statutory instrument to give effect to such an extension”,
he confirmed:
“The Government would have to lay a statutory instrument and the House would have to debate and vote on it.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 1377.]
It now seems as though that was totally inaccurate.

Robin Walker: I did not see what my hon. Friend said in that debate, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for promoting me so that I have junior Ministers underneath me.
The question before us is not whether the extension to article 50 happens, but the separate question of whether the domestic statute book reflects this extension, without which there could be a confusing and unclear statute book with clashing provisions. If we are to resolve that, it is essential that this instrument is passed  before 11 pm on 29 March so that it can come into force ahead of that time. This will align exit day in UK law with the new day and time on which the EU treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom in both EU and international law.

Bernard Jenkin: This Executive decision was approved by a Minister without proper reference to Parliament, bringing back to this House not just international law but law that is binding in our own law and binding on this Parliament. May I put it to my hon. Friend that it is exactly this kind of decision making and law making that people voted against in the referendum?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend makes an important point on which many of us could agree—that this process reflects some of the issues that caused people to vote in the way that they did. However, the House voted for an extension and it was in respecting the vote of this House that the Government sought to negotiate one.
I am acutely aware of the huge amount of work undertaken by Members across this House to scrutinise—

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister made light of my intervention, in which I expressly drew the attention of the House to what we had been told on Friday during an urgent question by a Minister of the Crown from his Department. If what was said then is wrong, when are we going to get an official correction and apology from the Government, because those of us who were in the House on Friday were certainly gravely misled by what was said?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously I well remember the exchanges, and I am aware of the particular interaction to which he is referring. The normal principle applies: every Member is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in this Chamber. If a Member inadvertently errs, it is incumbent upon that Member to correct the record. The Minister, perfectly reasonably, said that he had not seen what was said. However, it is not beyond the wit and sagacity of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to arrange for a copy of the extract from the Official Report to wing its way to the Dispatch Box during the course of this consideration, and the Minister might then be in a position further to respond to him.

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me on whether what Conservative Members are objecting to is the use of the royal prerogative, which allows us to sign up to international treaties using that power? If so, the logic of what they are arguing is actually that we should get rid of the Queen.

John Bercow: I simply say to the hon. Lady that it is not for me to offer an exegesis of what individuals might think about our constitutional arrangements, including the use or otherwise of the royal prerogative, but she has made her own point in her own way, with some panache, and it will be studied in the record.

Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There are some people in this House who want to get rid of Her Majesty, but they are on the Opposition Benches, not the Government Benches.

John Bercow: I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I wonder if we now might return to the relatively narrow ambit of the statutory instrument.

Robin Walker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall be brief.
I am acutely aware of the huge amount of work undertaken by Members across the House to scrutinise the near 550 statutory instruments brought forward to prepare for exit and provide legal certainty. If this instrument were not to pass, that work would be undermined by the legal uncertainty created. If, on the other hand, we passed today’s instrument, the only thing that would change across all those SIs is the moment at which they come into force, aligning with the time of our exit so that they work properly.
I remain hopeful that the House will support the Prime Minister’s deal and that we will leave the EU on 22 May, with a short technical extension to ensure that we can pass the necessary implementing legislation. This instrument is, however, without prejudice to whether that is the case. I hope the House can agree on the necessity of this instrument and approve it, so that it can come into force and we can avoid serious confusion and uncertainty for businesses and individuals.

Matthew Pennycook: I rise on behalf of the Opposition to support the motion. As the Minister made clear, this statutory instrument is a necessary one, and it should be entirely uncontroversial. As the House knows, in response to the Prime Minister’s letter of 20 March to the President of the European Council, the Council agreed to an extension of the article 50 process until 22 May, provided that the withdrawal agreement is approved by the House this week. The Council further agreed that if the withdrawal agreement is not approved this week, an extension until 12 April will take place to allow for the UK to “indicate a way forward” for its consideration, to which we hope the preceding debate and votes will contribute.
On 22 March, the UK’s permanent representative to the EU, Sir Tim Barrow, wrote to the President of the European Council to confirm agreement of the proposed extension arrangement under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union. As such, the extension of the article 50 process until at least 12 April will now happen as a matter of European law, and as the Minister said, it is legally binding in international law. This statutory instrument merely aligns “exit day” as it is defined for the purposes of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 with the new dates that have been agreed. It is entirely correct that it comes after agreement on extension was reached between the two parties.
Indeed, the withdrawal Act makes clear that this sequencing—that is to say, that any new agreement between the parties as to when the treaties cease to apply to the UK must precede any change to exit day for the purposes of the Act—is precisely what is required. Section 20(4) of the Act provides that a Minister of the Crown may by regulations amend the definition of “exit day” to
“ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom”—
the operative word being “are”, not the day and time that the Government hope the EU Council would agree to. As such, logically, the Act makes clear that the Government could not propose a statutory instrument that would stipulate a date or dates for exit day different from the date on which the treaties would cease to apply, as agreed at the time. In short, the power to redefine exit day as set out in the 2018 Act passed by this House arises only if the date has already been changed.

Peter Bone: The Act refers to a date. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would therefore be more logical for this statutory instrument to state 12 April, and if that date needs to be changed, it should be changed subsequently? I do not understand how we can have two dates in the statutory instrument.

Matthew Pennycook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, as he has in recent days. I think that it can be done either day—that is the short answer. There are different legal opinions on which creates the least amount of confusion and potential for legal challenge, but the Government have decided to do it this way, and we support the statutory instrument as a means to do so.
Those who take issue with the sequencing or the mere fact that this statutory instrument is before us at all today do so because they oppose in principle an extension to the Brexit process beyond Friday 29 March, presumably because they are either relaxed about leaving without a deal or positively wish for such an outcome.

Steve Brine: I am grateful for the Opposition’s support. Is not the bottom line that we are extending article 50 via this SI tonight to avoid the damaging no-deal exit that my constituents in Winchester, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, do not want to see, and that this House has now expressly said on several occasions—I predict it will do so again this evening—it does not want to see?

Matthew Pennycook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we have to do everything possible to avoid a disastrous no-deal exit. This SI does not do that; the extension agreed by the European Council and the UK does it. This SI ensures that our domestic legislation aligns with what has already been agreed and that we do not create legal confusion.
It is certainly the case that no one, including those who have no problem with the extension, expected that this Government would fail so miserably that an extension of any kind would be required, but it was always a possibility. That is precisely why the EU withdrawal Bill, at least in its original form, was drafted to provide for circumstances in which a withdrawal agreement came into force later than 29 March, following an extension. As the Government themselves put it at the time in their delegated powers memorandum:
“Exit day will be dependent on the withdrawal negotiations with the EU.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has commented, it was the Government’s decision to play politics with the issue of exit day for the purposes of our domestic legislation—constraining the flexibility provided for in the original drafting of the Bill by putting in a fixed exit date and time in a vain attempt to  curry favour with the hardliners on their own Benches—that means we require a statutory instrument in the form before us. That said, it remains the case that it is simply not reasonable to question the legitimacy of the Government’s actions in agreeing to an extension to the article 50 process or the fact that these regulations have sequentially followed that agreement.

Bernard Jenkin: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman’s account of recent history. In fact, the Government agreed to put in the date voluntarily, and then were blackmailed by the remain faction in our party to provide flexibility on the date. That is actually what happened.

Matthew Pennycook: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that the original draft of the Bill did not include the date. The reasons why the Government put it in and the actions of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in again helpfully coming to the rescue, I will leave to the hon. Gentleman and his view of what happened at the time.
It follows that, if the House votes against this statutory instrument, it cannot prevent an extension of the article 50 process taking place until at least one of the two proposed dates. In short, and much to my delight, there is nothing that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches can do today to force the UK out of the EU in two days’ time. All that would be achieved by voting against these regulations would be immense legal confusion, with two parallel sets of regulations in place—those deriving specifically and directly from EU law, and those made under the 2018 Act, which would diverge from it. As the Minister put it, our statute book would be in a complete mess. That is why this statutory instrument should self-evidently be supported, and why the Opposition will be doing so when we divide on it.

Bill Cash: The first point I would like to raise is about the ministerial code and the actions of the Prime Minister. It is quite clear under the ministerial code—I am glad to see the Attorney General sitting on the Front Bench—that the Law Officers must be consulted in good time before the Government are committed to critical decisions involving legal considerations. Even if I was prepared to concede, which I am not, that the Law Officers do not necessarily have to divulge their opinions—actually, the Attorney General was obliged to do so by a resolution of the House on 4 December 2018—the question is whether, as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister, who today and two days ago resolutely refused to answer me, had consulted the Law Officers. I asked her that, but she twice refused to tell me, and the inference is that she did not do so. Is this not misleading the House? That question worries me intensely.
Having dealt with that serious issue, I also have to say that I take the strongest possible exception, as do many other distinguished lawyers, QCs and former judges, to the Government’s action in entering into a binding agreement in international law, which purportedly alters the UK’s exit date from the European Union in advance of the votes in each House on the draft regulations, the effect of which would alter exit day in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
It has been suggested that the Act provides that the draft regulations can only be submitted to each House for affirmative resolution once the date of exit has been altered at international level. That is simply not correct. The provision for approval by affirmative resolution is free-standing in paragraph 14 of schedule 7, under which a draft instrument is to be submitted to both Houses. It was incumbent on the Government to respect the normal practice of allowing Parliament to approve any legislative changes before entering into a binding international obligation.
I was the shadow Attorney General during the Iraq debacle. On that occasion, it became apparent that there should have been consultation with Parliament on a matter of the gravest national importance. If I may say so, I obliged, or created the circumstances in which the then Attorney General submitted his opinion to the House. More recently, we had a similar situation with regard of the bombing of Syria. The idea that Parliament is not required to postpone approval of any legislative changes until we enter into a binding international obligation is well established in recent precedent.
The course that the Government have taken seeks to present Parliament with a fait accompli whereby Parliament is pressured to approve the draft regulations because, the Minister alleges, failure to do so would cause disconformity between the UK’s international obligations and domestic law.
Under our constitutional law, the power of the UK Government to conclude binding agreements with states and other international actors such as the European Union exists under the royal prerogative. It is a basic principle of our constitutional law that the royal prerogative may only be exercised consistently with the intention of Parliament. Any purported exercise of the royal prerogative that is inconsistent with the intention of Parliament is unlawful and of no effect in our internal legal order.
I am troubled by what could be the outcome of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments today. That is why I intervened on the Minister. I asked whether there was proper consideration of whether the matters before it were intra vires or ultra vires. I do not know the answer because I have not been given the information. I ask the Minister to check whether the Committee considered the question of vires in relation to the issues before it today.
The intention of Parliament is to be found solely in Acts of Parliament. It is not shown by resolutions of the House of Commons. Unless an Act of Parliament says otherwise, such resolutions do not have effect. Under the principles of public international law, in article 46 of the Vienna convention, a state is entitled to invoke the fact that its apparent consent to be bound by an international agreement has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law, if that violation is manifest, which is defined as “objectively evident”, and concerns a rule of internal law of fundamental importance. Those criteria are clearly satisfied, so there is manifest violation of our internal constitutional law. The Government’s actions are completely unlawful.
It is abominable that we should be faced with having to vote on the specious ground of so-called uniformity, which the Minister has presented. I do not blame him personally. I ask him to forgive me for suggesting that  he is taking advice from other persons who purport to be learned in the law. I am afraid that they are entirely wrong.
Only yesterday, Lord Pannick himself raised those very questions. Lord Pannick, of course, is a most distinguished lawyer. In fact, he was the lawyer for the plaintiff Gina Miller in the case that resulted in the requirement for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Lord Pannick knows what he is doing. In fact, I and others instructed him in relation to the Rees-Mogg case back in 1993, so I know a little bit about the brilliance of Lord Pannick. He said:
“The legal concern which some lawyers have expressed is that a power to specify the day and time when the treaties are to cease to apply is not satisfied by identifying two possibilities; it is not possible, if this SI is enacted, to identify exit day simply by reading it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 1721.]
It is worth considering the fact that Lord Pannick is not to be taken for granted and that he has raised serious doubts about the matter.

John Bercow: But I think the House will be relieved to know that it is to be spared a dilation on the matter of Lord Pannick’s involvement in the Rees-Mogg case—of which sparing I think I can be comfortably reassured by the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Cash: Absolutely. I do not need to dilate on that question at all; I am simply using it as a point of reference. The draft regulations contain unlawful sub-delegation.

Adam Afriyie: If what my hon. Friend says turns out to be the case and the Government did take the decision unlawfully or outwith the scope of this place, what would be the consequences?

Bill Cash: The regulations are not binding and they are invalid in law—it is as simple as that. This is a serious matter. Let us view the question from the point of view of people listening to this debate outside Parliament. This is not just a question of process. It is about the fact that as I speak, under the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we intend to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day, which is 29 March. That is the law of the land, subject only to this rather esoteric question about the commencement order, which can be resolved in 30 seconds by a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and saying, “This commencement order is now in force.” It is as simple as that. It does not require anything more than that.
We are talking about something that goes to the heart of the referendum decision itself—the democratic decision of the British people—which was that they wanted to leave the European Union. By the way, the House of Commons voted by 499 to about 120 for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act. It also voted for the European Union Referendum Act 2015 and gave the British people the right to make that decision. Contrary to the rubbish I hear all over certain parts of the House—that somehow or other remainers in Parliament have a right to take back that decision from the people—it was given to them and 17.4 million made it. This Parliament has no right to take it back from them.

Richard Bacon: I never knew we were going to have such a treat this evening, so it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to ask my hon. Friend a question. It so happens that I have a copy of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 with me. It does say in schedule 7—[Interruption.] Actually, Mr Speaker, it was completely by chance, because I had no idea that my hon. Friend was going to dilate on this matter. I heard the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) saying, first of all, the word “deviation” as if this were some sort of BBC panel show. Then I heard him, from a sedentary position, saying that he had no idea what my hon. Friend was talking about. It turns out that schedule 7(14) states very clearly:
“A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 20(4)”—
for the benefit of the hon. Member for Brent North, that is the section of the Act by which exit day is changed, so it is hardly a deviation—
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
It occurs to me—I invite my hon. Friend to agree with me—that my hon. Friend is doing an enormous service to this House.

Bill Cash: I am extremely indebted to my very good and very close hon. Friend. I am so glad that he has made that point, because I am simply trying to do what I have always tried to do, which is to get past all the fog and ask the central question, which bears on the issue of the sovereignty of this House in relation to that European Union (Referendum) Act 2015, which gave the right to the British people.
The 2018 Act, to which my hon. Friend refers, is the moment in time when we made that decision in this House. Even my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) voted for the Third Reading of that Act. This was, therefore, a decision taken by this Parliament. So forget the fact that these indicative votes going on at the moment, which I regard as a parliamentary bag of liquorice allsorts, is an obfuscation of the fundamental issues. The draft regulations published a few days’ ago are not in accordance with the 2018 Act, since they do not change exit day to a particular date. Instead, they purport to change exit day to two different dates—the point Lord Pannick referred to—depending on whether the House does or does not pass a resolution that satisfies the European Council decision. I emphasise the words “does not satisfy the European Council decision”, Mr Speaker.
I have raised this matter repeatedly. We have been supplicating the EU. We have given in to the EU. My European Scrutiny Committee last March published a very good report in which we pointed out that we should not accept the terms of reference dictated to us by the European Union. That is where it all went wrong. It went wrong when the European Union (Withdrawal) Act was overtaken by the Chequers agreement, in a pre-planned operation inside No. 10 driven by the Prime Minister and her advisers, the effect of which was to undermine the repeal of the 1972 Act. I say “pre-planned” because the 2018 Act received Royal Assent on 26 June and within 10 days the Chequers proposals had come forward, which morphed into the withdrawal agreement and article 4, the effect of which is to make us subjugated to the rule-making of the European Union. That is what went on and it was  done deliberately. It was going on while we were actually passing the withdrawal Act itself. I would describe it as a monstrous deceit on the British people.
I will go further. The course taken by the Government in seeking to pre-empt the affirmative resolution has definitely contaminated the lawfulness of their actions. It has, at a minimum, created serious doubts about the legal situation. I draw attention, for those who would be interested, to the views of the retired Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Richard Aikens, who is entirely clear on this question.
I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister yesterday. I have not yet had a reply. She has not, in fact, answered my question about the ministerial code, which I have asked twice. As far as I am concerned, this statutory instrument should be voted down. I invite the Attorney General to explain whether, as a matter of fact—irrespective of whether he is prepared to disclose his advice, which I think he should publish—the Prime Minister did consult him, as required under the ministerial code.

Tommy Sheppard: It seems that we are not to leave the European Union on 29 March after all. Let me begin by offering my commiserations to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and his associates in the European Research Group; I appreciate that this must be a difficult time. I fear that commemorative memorabilia may need to be scrapped, the champagne orders may need to be cancelled, and indeed, the bunting will have to be put back in the attic as freedom day celebrations are cancelled throughout the land. It seems to me that the inconvenience and disappointment of the hard-right faction in this Parliament is a small price to pay, to see if we can save the country from catastrophe.
The gravity of the situation means that this is not a moment for schadenfreude, so I shall refrain from seeking any pleasure in the disappointment of others, but we need to point out that the fact that we are discussing this statutory instrument tonight can only be seen as nothing other than the abject humiliation of the British Government in this process—not only because on more than 100 occasions, they have foolishly come to the Dispatch Box and reassured us that we would be leaving the European Union on 20 March, but because, that having proven impossible, they now come and offer us a timetable that is not of their design but is one that is imposed on them. If that is not humiliation, I do not know what is.
As so many Members have said in recent debates on this matter, the Government have only themselves to blame. The fact that this SI seeking an extension to the process is before us tonight is entirely a consequence of how the Government have conducted the process. From the word go, they were not interested in anyone’s opinion but their own. The dialogue about how to implement the 2016 referendum result was constrained only to the voices within the minority Conservative Government and their allies in the Democratic Unionist party, who I see are absent from our proceedings tonight. That is shocking, because what they should have done was to try to reach some sort of national consensus on how to proceed in this most divided of countries. However, that is what they did, and of course, in the middle of it, they called a general election and the Prime Minister  asked the British people for a mandate to support the manner in which she was discharging the referendum result, and the British people refused to give it to her. Anyone might have thought that that point would be the time to change tack, take stock and perhaps readjust—but no. They simply circled the wagons closer, bunkered down and spent the past two years negotiating with the European Union without reference to or a mandate from this Parliament. That is why we are in this situation today.
What happens next is the real question. If we have the delay granted that the statutory instrument suggests, what will we do with the time that is afforded to us? To my mind, that entirely depends on whether the Government wish to go forward with this Parliament in good faith or in bad faith.
A bad faith way to go forward would be to regard the debates that we have had today, and may well have in future, as some sort of inconvenient sideshow—an irritation to be dispensed with—before the Government come back yet again with a failed agreement, unaltered, to put before the House. That would be bad faith, and I think we saw some of that earlier on today when they tried to prevent us from having the debates that we had this afternoon in the first place. It was not a good look, and it is interesting that Parliament rejected the Government’s position today by an even bigger majority than we did on Monday. I would caution the Government to have some humility now in how they proceed. A good faith way to proceed would be to try to reach out and agree a new political consensus with other voices in this Parliament and in this country, including, in particular, other political parties and the devolved Administrations within the United Kingdom. That would be good faith.
This is a little surreal, because we are discussing what to do with the timetable before we know the outcome of the votes that we had earlier on, so I do not know yet what the mood of Parliament is on the various options that were put before it. That said, I am concerned that, when the Government have talked about how they might respond to those decisions and debates, they have suggested that they could not contemplate supporting anything they regarded as undeliverable. We can all accept that everything has practical consequences and that we have to come up with proposals that are practical and can be implemented, but I rather fear that “undeliverable” in this context means anything that conflicts with the draft withdrawal agreement. If so, it is another conceit to deny the will of Parliament.
The whole purpose of this exercise is that, having voted down the draft withdrawal agreement by such large majorities, we are genuinely engaged in a process to find a route to a majority by some other means.

Sandy Martin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the one thing that is genuinely undeliverable is a no-deal Brexit? We do not have the trading mechanisms to make it possible to deliver a no-deal Brexit and retain the stability of the country.

Tommy Sheppard: That is self-evidently true.
What is deliverable is to go back to the EU, remove the red lines and seek a new set of discussions with a new objective. My belief is that the EU would respond warmly to any such approach. To those concerned  about being caught up in a process where the EU is placing constraints on what we can do, I say that our salvation is in our own hands, because we need only revoke the notice we served under article 50, pause the situation and take control of the process, without constraint or qualification or conditions being set by the EU or anyone else. That is a sensible move that the Government ought to consider. It was, of course, an unpardonable folly to trigger article 50 in the first place, without having the first clue where we were going, which is why I and my colleagues at the time voted against it.
Doing that will take time. Unfortunately, what we have before us tonight is only an interim measure, because it does not get rid of the cliff edge; it just pushes it a few weeks into the future. I am sure that we will have to come back to debate further statutory instruments and legislation to allow us properly to change direction and negotiate a better agreement with the EU, but that will take time; it will not be done by 22 May. We might as well acclimatise ourselves to the fact that to get a better outcome we will need a long and significant delay, which means preparing to fight European elections on 23 May 2019.
I am becoming increasingly alarmed. It seems to be the people who wish to deny the people of the UK any say on the outcome of the negotiations who are terrified at the prospect of facing the electorate on 23 May and asking them who they want to represent them in the EU. I do not understand how the Government negotiated an agreement that provided for this country not to be represented in the power structures of the EU during a transitional period of up to two years. That is ridiculous. We might stay, or we might leave the EU, but for as long as we are there, people in the UK have an equal right to be represented in those structures as people in any of the other 27 member states. We should acclimatise ourselves now to the idea of fighting those elections.
That would be a good thing. It would be embarrassing for some people who thought we would have it all done and dusted by now, but it is taking a little longer than people thought, so, as we take whatever time is required, we should be represented. I would predict two things if we have these elections on 23 May. The first is that the turnout would be considerably greater than the 35% in 2014. The second—I hope to be judged on it—is that the main loser will be the UK Independence party, which fluked the result last time.
Whether or not people respond to those elections will depend on how this Parliament approaches them. If we are seen to be dragged kicking and screaming to the ballot boxes, that will not be a good look, but if we embrace the opportunity for people in this country to have their democratic say, we may be able to change completely the narrative on how this matter is being addressed. We may be able to get rid of much of the ill-tempered debate that has taken place and begin the process of political healing. That is why we will offer no objection to the statutory instrument, but let me also say that it is only one small step along a much longer road that we now need to take.

John Redwood: The mood outside the House is overwhelmingly that we should get on with it. The nation heard the Prime Minister and the Government  promise on countless occasions that we would be leaving on 29 March 2019, with or without a deal. It is true that the Prime Minister always said that she wanted a deal and expected to get a deal, but she never ruled out leaving without a deal, and she was right not to do so. Indeed, for many months she used to say, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” leaving open the possibility that what was on offer would be so bad that it would be better just to leave.
I am not someone who thinks that we should just leave. I think that we should leave with a series of deals, and I am pleased that the Government have put place the essential deals that we need in order to leave. Of course we needed an aviation deal, a haulage deal, a Government procurement deal and all the rest of it, and those things have been sorted out, I am told, over the long two years and eight months that have elapsed since the original vote. I am also pleased that the Government, in parallel with constantly telling us that they would get an agreement and an agreement that we would like, continued their so-called no-deal planning, which, as I have said, is actually many-deal planning—that is, planning a series of lesser deals to ensure that things worked smoothly and that we were in a good position and had options.

Anna Soubry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Redwood: I wish to develop my argument a little.
The Government put us in that position. What we have not heard, either from the Minister or, more importantly, from the Prime Minister, who is responsible for this, is the case for the delay that we are now being asked to approve in United Kingdom legislation. It seems to be mainly geared to the idea that the House will accept the withdrawal agreement after we should have left, rather than before we were going to leave, but we now learn that the deal that was actually offered did not allow the Government until May or early June to put the thing through. The EU was very tough on the Government, saying, “You must get the withdrawal agreement through before the official leaving date of 29 March, under the previous understanding,” which leaves the Government with only a couple of days in which to do so.
The question to the Government must be, “Why has it taken so long to get this agreement into a shape that the House would pass, and why have you been so dilatory about presenting, or re-presenting the agreement?” or, even better, “Why did you not renegotiate it to get it into a form in which it might be worth considering again?” The question that you have rightly posed to the Government, Mr Speaker, is whether there is any point in constantly bringing the same thing back time and again when the answer continues to be negative. The Government have not really explained today, in the context of their wish for a delay, why the outcome would suddenly be different after they have left it for so long and why they left it so long if it was so time-critical. They have had plenty of months between the original Chequers disaster, when they first adumbrated this policy and there were mass resignations from the Government and the Conservative party and today, when—many more resignations later—there is still a considerable reluctance on the part of sections of the governing party to vote for the withdrawal agreement.
I fear that I am not free to support this proposal. I do not think that a good case has been made for delay, and I do not think that the Government have made a case to the public for why we have to be let down when such a clear promise was embedded in the law—in the withdrawal Act that this Parliament passed. I suggest to the Government that they should think again about how they wish to use the time that they are trying to buy.
I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) over the crowning irony of the position the Government have placed us in. They are claiming superior European law to do something the leave majority in this country does not want them to do, but they are not so sure of their legal ground that they want this House to actually endorse it, because they know otherwise there might be legal difficulties, but to do it on the very piece of legislation that is taking back control. It is almost unbelievable.
This House has rightly decided to back the vote of the British people and by a solemn statute say that we are taking back control and from the day that that comes into effect all laws and matters relating to Government and public business will be settled in this House of Commons and not by the EU. And we are now told that the Prime Minister can have a conversation in an evening Council meeting in Brussels and be pushed off her request and given something completely different from her request, and we are told that trumps anything the UK Parliament does. Well, if we wanted to sum up why 17.4 million people voted the way they did, we could not do better than take that example. We do not want this House sidelined or presumed upon; this House should decide when we leave the European Union and that should not have been settled in that way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call Sir Bernard—oh, I do beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle): I call Angela Eagle, and then other colleagues. I remind the House that there are fewer than 25 minutes to go.

Angela Eagle: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We have seen today elements of the Conservative party in high dungeon, or dudgeon—[Interruption.] Maybe they should be in the high dungeon. We have seen them in high dudgeon about the fact that the Minister has brought a statutory instrument before us today to take away the cliff edge they were relying on plunging this country over in order to get the kind of clean break, catastrophe Brexit that many of them secretly want. I never thought in this House that I would sit here and see considerable numbers of Members of a Government party—the party opposite—planning on that basis to cause such damage to our economic prospects and the prospects for prosperity of all of my constituents and everybody else’s constituents; it is a period of history that I hoped I would never see.
The Prime Minister is entirely responsible for getting all of us into the mess we have seen develop over the last few months as she has repeatedly, after putting a definite leaving date on the face of the original withdrawal Act, put off the vote and put off the vote on her withdrawal agreement because she wanted, I believe, to face this House with an unpalatable choice between her deal,  which many from all parts of the House have serious problems with, and the catastrophe of no deal. In a modern, mature Parliament I believe that that kind of process and choice should never be allowed to face us. Whether we voted leave or remain—whichever side of the argument we were on in 2016—we should not have been put in that position, and it was the date on the face of what is now the withdrawal Act that allowed the Prime Minister to have the leverage that she somehow thought would work to her advantage.
The Prime Minister has now been forced to resort to the leverage that we hear happened at the 1922 committee tonight, where she basically said “Back me so you can then sack me,” and gave another date, 22 May, for when she would announce her departure. So now, while the country’s future is still in the air and not decided, we have the horrible, self-regarding spectacle of the next runners and riders in the Conservative party seeing who will inherit the poisoned chalice that the Tory psychodrama of Brexit has injected into the body politic in this country.
The Minister’s statutory instrument is an inevitable consequence of creating a false cliff edge. That cliff edge was created for blackmail purposes, but there remain many sensible, responsible people on both sides of the House, and we have expressed our wish not to allow the country to plunge over it. The Minister was correct to bring forward the statutory instrument, and to surmise that this Parliament will not allow a choice involving the catastrophe Brexit of leaving with no deal. We will not allow this or any future Prime Minister to blackmail this country with such appalling, disrespectful and dangerous tactics.
I will support the Minister’s statutory instrument tonight. I hope that in due course we will be able to have a much longer delay, to start the process again and to do it properly with some of the respect that we have seen developing in today’s indicative votes debate and with the responsible, cross-party debate that is beginning to develop and which should have happened in this country when the Prime Minister crossed the threshold of Downing Street two years ago. She has got the process exactly the wrong way round. Permanent damage has been done to our economy, our prospects, our prosperity and, more than anything else, our reputation in the world, because this Prime Minister has got this so disastrously wrong. Whoever her successor is, I hope that they will not take this to be a place that can be blackmailed, as she has done, and that they will not play Russian roulette with the prosperity and future of this country. Anyone who decides that that is a reasonable way to behave does not deserve the honour of being our Prime Minister.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) gave the game away when, amid all her hyperbole and rhetoric, she betrayed her desire for a “much longer delay”. That is what the remain majority in this House really want. I was rather shocked to hear the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) say that this measure should be entirely uncontroversial. He might not have been listening, but millions of our voters certainly have been listening and they were expecting to leave the EU on 29 March. For them, this debate comes as a very great disappointment, because this order cancels exit day on 29 March. The way in which the Council decision  was agreed illustrates exactly why people voted to leave the EU, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) set out.
History will mark this day as the moment when this House decided to start to turn against the decision to leave the EU and against the mandate upon which most MPs in this House were elected—[Interruption.] Oh yes, there are exceptions, but I am talking about the 85% of votes that were cast for pro-Brexit parties. So far, the EU’s withdrawal agreement has been rejected for good reasons, not least because it is so far from taking back control over our laws, borders and trade. That is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). In fact, if this statutory instrument goes through, the next time the Minister brings an order to this House to implement an EU directive, decision or regulation, there will probably have been no UK Minister sitting at the table in Brussels to agree that decision, or even to be there to be outvoted. That decision will just have been handed down through the withdrawal agreement.
I have never considered myself a populist or a man of the people, but it is only those like me, who will vote against this decision to cancel leaving the EU on 29 March, who are truly representing what the British people decided in the referendum. We are the real majority in this House, but we are sorely under-represented by its Members.

Simon Hoare: rose—

Hannah Bardell: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: I am going to press on.
This House has now embarked upon an unprincipled constitutional experiment. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair, recently heard from a retired Lord Chief Justice that nothing like this experiment has occurred since the recasting of the role of Parliament in 1688, which shows just how radical it is. I recognise the sincerity of many right hon. and hon. Members involved in the experiment, but they have resorted to the most questionable constitutional methods, which leave no Government or anyone else accountable for what is being decided. Who will the voters now hold to account for the outcome of the Brexit question?
Moreover, the process has been supported by those either embarking upon embellishing the discredited withdrawal agreement with ever greater restrictions on our right of national democratic self-determination or seeking to disrupt Brexit or stop it altogether in defiance of the manifesto promises upon which most of us were elected. I therefore regret to conclude on these matters, including these regulations, that this House is left with questionable democratic legitimacy.

Bill Cash: I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I remind Members, including those on the Conservative Benches, that they voted consistently for the Acts of Parliament, including the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, that will give effect to all the enactments and that to pursue such an objective is effectively to reverse their decisions on specious and unacceptable grounds.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with my hon. Friend. I will vote against these regulations, and let me say something about the mess that we are now in. I can fairly claim to be one of the minority in this House who were the authors of the voters’ referendum decision, and I am proud of that. Most of us who voted leave have stuck with what we believe, one way or another. We are not the authors of what the remain majority in this House, with the Government, have made of Brexit, nor of what they continue to inflict upon our sad and disillusioned voters.

Kirsty Blackman: I cannot promise that I will speak without hesitation, repetition or deviation, and I probably will not limit myself to a minute, but I will do my best on all those counts. An extension to the exit day is a good thing for several reasons, but the extension that has been asked for, which we are discussing tonight, is not the one that we should be faced with, and I want to look back at how we got into this mess.
Several Members have mentioned the fact that people are expecting us to leave on 29 March. However, when people voted in the June 2016 referendum, not one person mentioned 29 March 2019 as exit day, nor did they mention 12 April or 22 May. The people voted either to remain in or leave the EU. That was the proposition, and there was no discussion of the actual exit day. While I am on the subject, nobody during the referendum expected that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) would now be the Prime Minister. No one expected this deal to be the deal before Parliament, because that was not discussed during the course of the referendum, and it is absolutely wrong for anyone to say that it represents the settled will of the UK people.

Peter Bone: I remind the hon. Lady that David Cameron said that if the referendum resulted in the UK leaving, he would trigger article 50 the day after. He did not do that, and he resigned.

Kirsty Blackman: The article 50 process is a two-year period with the possibility of extension. Triggering article 50 does not mean we leave exactly two years afterwards. There is a negotiation period, and anybody with an ounce of sense, for a start, would not have triggered article 50 until they were in a position to negotiate something with which Parliament and the people would agree, and they would have negotiated extensions so we do not leave before we are ready.

Anna Soubry: I am not aware of David Cameron ever having said that he would trigger article 50 the day after the referendum.

Peter Bone: He did.

Anna Soubry: I just said I am not aware of it, but I am certainly aware of the Leader of the Opposition saying it.
I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) paid a lot of attention to the leave campaign. Does she remember the leave campaign making it very clear to the British people that we would not be leaving the European Union before a deal on our future relationship had been secured? That absolutely has not been done by this Government.

Kirsty Blackman: The right hon. Lady, as ever, is absolutely correct. People were promised a number of unicorns, and a number of Conservative Members still believe those unicorns exist—they are wandering around and waiting in vain for those unicorns to emerge. The problem is that the unicorns do not exist and have never existed. Promises were made to the people of these islands that could never have been met.
One of our biggest issues in this whole situation is that the red lines have been adhered to with some kind of iron grip. The red lines created the Chequers agreement. If anyone sensible had been in the Prime Minister’s shoes, they would have said that the most important thing for our economy is to have a deal that protects services, because services are 80% of the UK economy. Instead, the Prime Minister said, “The most important thing for me is to crack down on freedom of movement, so I will do everything I can to ensure that freedom of movement is cracked down on, rather than to ensure that the economy is protected.” That red line was ridiculous from the beginning.
The reason we are in this situation on the exit date—it would be great if the Minister could make this clear in his summing up, if he does sum up—is because of the Prime Minister’s ridiculous red line on the European elections. It is ridiculous that it should be laid down that we refuse to take part in the European elections. My party is ready, willing and able to take part in the elections, and I think we would do rather well. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) that UKIP would see its number of votes and its number of seats reduced. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) suggest that the Labour party should be courting those UKIP voters and trying to get people who used to vote UKIP but who now vote Labour to stay on board. Frankly, I would rather not have those votes if I were given the option.
The Government lack preparedness. The Secretary of State for Scotland suggested this morning that the Scottish Government “have not embraced Brexit” and are therefore not prepared for the Prime Minister’s deal to happen in the event of Brexit. The UK Government are also not prepared for Brexit. That is why they are having to ask for an extension. Even if the Prime Minister’s deal had been approved, or were to be approved this week, they are still not prepared for Brexit to happen.
I sit on the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which did not meet this Tuesday because there were no proposed negative instruments for it to discuss, and the Committee does not propose to sit next Tuesday because there are no proposed negative instruments for it to discuss. I have been asking whether that means there are no proposed negative instruments left, but apparently it means we are not getting a recess and the Committee will sit the week after next to discuss them.
The UK Government have failed at every opportunity to prepare adequately, and they have set absolutely unreasonable red lines. What they should be doing now is going to the EU and saying, “We need a longer extension so we can adequately prepare, and we are happy to take part in the EU elections as a result.” My preferred position is that we should have a people’s vote, with the people given a clear choice between remaining in the EU and whatever deal this House would like to put to them.

Hannah Bardell: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, summing up brilliantly the exact guddle that this Conservative Government have got themselves into. Is it not the worst kind of loser who blames their opposition or opponent for their own mess? Not only are this Government completely screwing up the Brexit negotiations and the whole of the UK, but they are asleep at the wheel in government and cannot even replace their disability Minister, thus offending and not properly representing people with disabilities across the UK. It is utterly shameful.

Kirsty Blackman: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: this is a complete mess, and not only over things such as not being able to replace the disability Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister has lost 28 Ministers; the previous three Prime Ministers reached a combined total of losing that many Ministers.
The last issue I wish to raise is the fact that EU settled status is not sorted out. People’s jobs, livelihoods and living standards—people’s lives—are being put at risk by the decisions and lack of preparedness of this Government. But we will be supporting this SI and supporting the extension, although it should be a longer one.

Mark Francois: I will try to be brief, so that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) can get in, too.

Steve Double: And me.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman also wishes to contribute, so I know that the right hon. Gentleman will exercise an enormous self-denying ordinance.

Mark Francois: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tonight, we are debating whether or not to extend article 50. The thing I would like to touch on briefly is whether the EU would ever countenance a further extension. I say that because from 2007 to 2010, when we were on the Opposition Benches, I was my party’s shadow Europe Minister. I did the Lisbon treaty, working with William Hague, and that was my epiphany; we had 14 days’ debate in this place and we could not change a single punctuation mark. That is when I realised that we had to leave. I hope the Minister will accept that in those three years I spent a lot of time visiting the institutions of the European Union, because that was my job. I came to realise that for many people in the EU, particularly, though not exclusively, in the Commission, what is often referred to as the “European project” has the status almost of a religious act of faith. People passionately believe in it, it transcends almost all other considerations and it must be promoted and protected almost at all costs. Very many people in the EU were utterly shocked when the UK voted to leave. They were absolutely stunned, because in their world what we had done was an act of heresy—it was apostasy to leave.
Many people in the EU believe we should be punished, not least pour encourager les autres. But what they are even more worried about is the UK taking part in European elections, which would bring 73 UK MEPs into the Parliament, many of whom, though not all, would be likely to be Eurosceptic. That would completely  upset the calculations that they have made to reconfigure the new Parliament in order to keep out what they call the “populists” from eastern Europe and, for instance, the Lega Nord from Italy. That is why they would not accept the extension to 30 June. They insisted either on 22 May or 12 April, which is the drop-dead date for when we would have to begin European election preparation in the UK.
So my argument simply is this: I believe that for the EU protecting the integrity of the Parliament, which under the co-decision procedure under the Lisbon treaty has much greater power now relative to the other institutions, would be even more important to those who really believe in the project than trying to keep the UK in the EU, although many would like that. Therefore, if I am right, they would not countenance any further extension beyond the dates that have been given, because it would muck up the European Parliament and that would spoil Macron’s plans to federalise the EU. So my argument is that we should not be worried about a long extension, because I believe, although I cannot prove it in the House tonight, that they will never grant it. They do not want, in any circumstances, to go beyond 12 April because it means European elections that they simply cannot stomach, because there would be 35 to 40 Eurosceptic British MEPs who completely rip up their plan for the Parliament.

Sam Gyimah: rose—

Mark Francois: I am going to finish.
I believe, on that basis, that the threat of a long extension has always been a false one and that if we get to 12 April, we can leave, because I believe that those who believe in the project would not allow the extension.
Finally, the Government spent £9 million on sending a document to every household in this country, before the referendum, that said, “This is a once-in-a-generation decision. This is your decision and we will implement what you decide.” If the people in this House overturn that decision, the people will be extremely angry. Do not say you were not warned.

Ed Vaizey: rose—

Steve Double: rose—

John Bercow: Is the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) giving way, or has he completed his speech?

Mark Francois: I have finished to leave time for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).

John Bercow: It is very good of the right hon. Gentleman to advise me, but I was going to call Mr Double, and then Mr Vaizey.

Ed Vaizey: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: You can divide it between you.

Steve Double: Many good speeches have been made this evening about the validity of the instrument we are being asked to vote on, but I wish to talk briefly about what I believe what is   taking place tonight looks like to the British people, particularly the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU. Many of the British people have put their trust in this place and we told them that we would be leaving the EU on 29 March, in just two days. The passage of this statutory instrument to delay that date is a breach of trust with the British people, who trusted us and took us at our word when we said we would be leaving at the end of this month. Many people are concerned that Brexit is being stolen by the establishment in this place, and the passage of this instrument is another step towards that taking place.
Many people will feel that this change is wrong for the very reason that has been mentioned many times: we have been told that we do not have a choice tonight, that the EU has already made this decision for us and that the date on which we leave is going to be delayed. We have been told that what we do tonight is irrelevant because the decision has already been made, so we should just pass it through. If we want an example of why many of the 17.4 million people voted to leave, that is it. Is there any pretence that this House has sovereignty over our own rules? We cannot even decide for ourselves the date on which we are going to leave. We have been told it by the EU. We could not even get the date that we wanted, which was negotiated away. I shall therefore keep trust with the word that we gave the British people when we said we would leave on 29 March and will not support this statutory instrument tonight.

Ed Vaizey: rose—

Richard Bacon: rose—

John Bercow: I call Mr Ed Vaizey.

Ed Vaizey: Everyone on the Government Back Benches has spoken against this statutory instrument; I just have time to say that I fully support it. I cede my place to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon).

Richard Bacon: This Government have had half the time it took to fight the second world war, two thirds of the time it took to fight the first world war, and the entire length of the Kennedy Administration, during which time the groundwork was laid for a successful moonshot. The idea that we need more time is nonsense. The Government have had plenty of time, they have not used it well enough, and we should just leave.

Wes Streeting: Further to that excellent speech, I point out that it took seven years to organise the two-week London Olympics. Extracting ourselves from the most sophisticated political and economic alliance in the history of the world will probably take a bit longer.

The House divided: Ayes 441, Noes 105.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.

John Bercow: I will now suspend the House until the outcome of votes on motions—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Let me advise the House that it was very much the hope of our extremely dedicated and professional staff that  they would be able to provide the results of the indicative votes to be announced immediately after the result of this Division, but that has not proved possible. I do not expect the suspension to be very long, but I will suspend the House until the outcome of votes on motions relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from and future relationship with the European Union is available. The Division bell will be rung two minutes before the House resumes.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Order.
Sitting suspended.

EU: Withdrawal and Future  Relationship (Votes)

John Bercow: I can now announce the result of today’s recorded votes on motions relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from and future relationship with the European Union.
In respect of Mr Baron’s motion (B)—no deal—the Ayes were 160 and the Noes were 400, so the Noes have it.
In respect of Mr Nicholas Boles’s motion (D)—common market 2.0—the Ayes were 188 and the Noes were 283, so the Noes have it.
In respect of George Eustice’s motion (H)—EFTA and EEA—the Ayes were 65 and the Noes were 377, so the Noes have it.
In respect of Mr Kenneth Clarke’s motion (J)—customs union—the Ayes were 264 and the Noes were 272, so the Noes have it.
In respect of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion (K)—Labour’s alternative plan—the Ayes were 237 and the Noes were 307, so the Noes have it.
In respect of Joanna Cherry’s motion (L)—revocation to avoid no deal—the Ayes were 184 and the Noes were 293, so the Noes have it.
In respect of Dame Margaret Beckett’s motion (M)—confirmatory public vote—the Ayes were 268 and the Noes were 295, so the Noes have it.
In respect of Mr Marcus Fysh’s motion (O)—contingent preferential arrangements—the Ayes were 139 and the Noes were 422, so the Noes have it—[Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am finishing—[Interruption.] Order. I am finishing my statement—I do not require any help from the Government Chief Whip. The lists showing how—[Interruption.] He will learn, so he should listen. The lists showing how hon. and right hon. Members voted will be published in the usual way on the CommonsVotes app and website and in Hansard.

Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order.

Oliver Letwin: It is, of course, a very great disappointment that the House has not chosen to find a majority for any proposition. However, those of us who put this proposal forward as a way of proceeding predicted that we would not this evening reach a majority, and indeed, for that very reason, put forward a business of the House motion designed to allow the House to reconsider these matters on Monday—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Perhaps colleagues would do the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy—[Interruption.] Yes, I say to the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) that I am not asking him; I am telling him that the right hon. Gentleman will be done the courtesy of being heard. That is the beginning and the end of the matter.

Oliver Letwin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If on Monday the House can reach a majority view, it would be in the interests of our constituents and the country,  but I personally continue to harbour the hope that my right hon. and hon. colleagues will see fit to vote in favour of a Government motion between now and close of play on Friday, which would obviate the necessity for a further set of votes on Monday.

John Bercow: Thank you. I call the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

Stephen Barclay: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has today considered a wide variety of options as a way forward, and it demonstrates that there are no easy options; there is no simple way forward. The deal that the Government have negotiated is a compromise, both with the EU and with Members across the House. That is the nature of complex negotiations. The results of the process this House has gone through today strengthen our view that the deal the Government have negotiated is the best option. [Interruption.] Furthermore—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard.

Stephen Barclay: Furthermore, although this was not a significant feature of today’s debate, any deal must include a withdrawal agreement. It is the Government’s firm wish to get the withdrawal agreement approved by this House, and I urge all Members to agree, no matter their view on what the future relationship should be, that if they believe in delivering on the referendum result by leaving the EU with a deal, it is necessary to back the withdrawal agreement. If we do not do that, there are no guarantees about where this process will end. It is for that reason that I call on all Members from across the House in the national interest to back the Prime Minister’s deal.

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious moment for all of us. We have to reflect that this House of Commons has tried to find a way through the Brexit crisis over the last few months, and we have failed. We need to reflect on the fact, when the Government talk about bringing their deal back, that they got 202 and then 242 votes. That deal should be dead. The people’s vote got 268 votes tonight. I know we did not win, but we got more votes for a people’s vote than the Government did for their proposition. It is becoming increasingly clear that the House cannot find a way forward. The Government and the Prime Minister have failed to provide leadership. The only thing we should now be doing is going back to the people of the United Kingdom in a general election to end this impasse.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I call Sir Patrick McLoughlin.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that, following on from your ruling earlier today, none of these questions can be put again?

John Bercow: The particular process set in train as a consequence of the business of the House motion is a discrete process. It is the first time it has been conducted,  it was approved by the House and therefore my understanding—[Interruption.] No, no, I am not debating the issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He has more or less courteously raised the point of order, and I am responding to it. I am not going to conduct a debate with him. My understanding of the situation does not entirely cohere with his, and I have explained that the motion passed by the House expressed support for a two-stage process. I will for the time being leave it there. I am extraordinarily grateful to him.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

John Bercow: No, as I just said, I am not debating it with the right hon. Gentleman.

Anna Soubry: rose—

John Bercow: Point of order, Anna Soubry. [Interruption.] Point of order, Anna Soubry. [Interruption.] Point of order, Anna Soubry.

Anna Soubry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] As someone who has been called by you—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Let me just explain—[Interruption.] Order. Let me just explain one thing in this place. The right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) is a very senior Member of the House and a former Chief Whip, but he is not the Speaker of this House. It is not for him to presume the order in which matters are considered, and I trust that he will not suppose that it is for him to do so. Let me say very gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I treat him with respect, but I am not intimidated by him, and I am sure—I am absolutely sure—that he would not seek to intimidate me. I am taking a point of order from the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and, frankly, that is the situation. [Interruption.]

Anna Soubry: I have been called. [Interruption.] The country is watching us, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Let me gently say to Members that I can shout as loudly as anyone, but let us try to remind ourselves what we have decided to do. [Hon. Members: “Nothing.”] Some of us have been involved in the debates and the discussions about the procedure from the outset. It is all very well for people to come in at the end of all this, but let us remind ourselves—[Hon. Members: “Patronising.”] Oh, I can patronise as well.
Let us remind ourselves that this was a two-stage process. Today was our attempt to see whether there was anything we could settle on, but also to look at where the biggest votes might be. The Prime Minister’s deal secured 242 votes, motion (J), which supported a customs union, secured 264 votes, and beating all of them was the motion for a people’s vote, with 268 votes. [Hon. Members: “It was a loss.”] Members do not need to shout it out. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Like any other Member, the right hon. Lady has a right to be heard, and she will be heard.

Anna Soubry: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
May I suggest that we now proceed to the agreed procedure that the House adopted? May I suggest that, having settled on the matters on which there were the biggest votes, we now move forward to Monday to see if  we can find a compromise, so that we can look to how we are going to give this country the leadership and the certainty that it needs and deserves?
Finally, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] If hon. Members had not tried to shout me down, I might have finished two minutes ago.
May I suggest that we continue with our agreed procedure? It is becoming increasingly obvious that if we do settle on a deal, that deal needs to go back to the British people, and we need to see whether we can arrange that on Monday.

John Bercow: I note what the right hon. Lady has said. As a matter of fact, the Business of the House motion having been passed, the process is established, and—I say this for the benefit of colleagues, but also for the benefit of those attending our proceedings who are not Members of the House—the process is that a second day, Monday, has been provided for. I am not investing that point with any spin, one way or the other; it is not for the Chair to do that. I am simply reporting the factual position to the House. That is the reality of the matter. [Interruption.] It is no good somebody saying “Rubbish.” That is the reality of the matter, because it is that for which the House of Commons voted.

Mark Francois: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. After many hours of debate and an extremely complex procedure, the House of Commons has decided sweet Felicity Arkwright. I think the public will look in on these proceedings in utter amazement; they will be completely bemused by what has gone on. This attempt to seize the Order Paper has failed. The second referendum has been defeated. The revocation of article 50 was smashed. And surely the last thing we want to do, Mr Speaker, in the eyes of the public, is on Monday to go through this farce all over again.

John Bercow: I say this for the benefit of those who have not heard this interaction before: having known—

Mark Francois: Oh, not this again.

John Bercow: Yes, it is important. Having known the—

Mark Francois: I have heard it four times.

John Bercow: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman has and I have, but others have not. He and I have known each other—[Interruption.] Order. I say in a very good-natured spirit to the right hon. Gentleman that he and I have known each other for 35 and a half years, and knowing him as well as I do, I know that he is more interested in what he has to say to me than in anything I have to say to him, but the simple fact of the matter is that a process has been decided upon. It may well be that it does not suit the palate of the right hon. Gentleman; we will have to see what is said tomorrow and by other colleagues, but I repeat that I do not think he really wants much of a response from me. I respect the right hon. Gentleman greatly, as he knows; I have heard what he has said and the House has heard what he said, and I now want to hear what—

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Wait a moment; patience. I do not mean any unkindness to hon. Members, but I think at this point I will hear from a former Leader of the House of enormous experience, and who had a motion before us today: Dame Margaret Beckett.

Margaret Beckett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful if you could correct or confirm my recollection. I do not know what anybody else expected, but I did not necessarily expect any motion to carry a majority today, certainly not the one I proposed, which, if I recall, has had almost an identical result to the one it had the last time it was moved in this House. My understanding of the procedure instigated by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was that we would first let 1,000 flowers bloom and see where we went, that that would expose some things that had perhaps little support, and that then we would seek to proceed to see whether ranking things in an order of importance made a difference.
I have to say to the Secretary of State that I thought it was somewhat extraordinary for him to come to the Dispatch Box and say that this proves that the only thing to do is go ahead with the Prime Minister’s motion, which got fewer votes than many motions that have been before us tonight. So perhaps you would tell me, Mr Speaker, whether my recollection, which seems to differ from that of some colleagues, is reasonably accurate.

John Bercow: Yes. It is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the merits of the arguments, and I have not sought to do so. What I did seek to do, which I thought it was proper for the Speaker to do, was facilitate the House by selecting a wide range of motions expressing different points of view and allowing those different, and in some cases contrasting, propositions to be tested. I would just very gently make the observation, again with a view to the intelligibility of our proceedings to a wider audience, that these matters have been debated over a lengthy period. Indeed, since the publication of the withdrawal agreement a little over four months ago I have chaired every single debate—and every minute of every single debate and, I think, exchange—in the Chamber on the matter. It is simply a statement of fact to say that in that period of four months and a bit, the House has not reached a conclusion. So if the right hon. Lady is asking me whether I am utterly astonished that today no agreement has been reached, I confess that I am not utterly astonished that after one day’s debate no agreement has been reached, but that is the factual position.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

John Bercow: I know that the right hon. Gentleman attaches very considerable importance to his next intervention, and I look forward to it with bated breath, beads of sweat upon my brow and eager anticipation, but not before I have heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out to what might be a bemused wider world that Members were not having to choose between these eight different options, that they were able to vote for or against each and every one of them, and that they voted against all of them? If I were  an unofficial Back-Bench Prime Minister, I would resign at this point, not seek to repeat such an exercise in abject failure.

John Bercow: As it happens, I have known the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for precisely the same length of time, virtually to the day, as I have known the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and the mental acuity of the right hon. Member for New Forest East never ceases to strike me. However, in relation to his proposition about being Back-Bench Prime Minister for the day, I gently say that I am not arguing with him and that, in his case, the proposition is an academic one.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Oh, very well; I will indulge the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin).

Patrick McLoughlin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You interpreted my earlier attempt at a point of order as an attempt to argue with you. I was not attempting to argue with you; I was seeking a point of clarification. The most amazing thing about the points of order that we have just heard is that nothing has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, but let us leave that aside for just a second. Can you tell me how your ruling tonight and your response to my earlier point of order coincide with what you said about the Government bringing back a meaningful vote? I think that there was an inconsistency in your ruling, and I would be interested to hear what the views behind it were.

John Bercow: I do not wish to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I have made the point once and I thought I had made it clearly—[Interruption.] Yes, I made it very clearly. I think he disagrees with it, but the point that I was making is this: the process for which the House opted was and is a discrete process and the first of its kind. Indeed, the novelty of the process, which is welcome to some and not to others, was the subject of much comment earlier in our proceedings. I believe that it is a process, and the House decided earlier that it should be pursued over a two-day period. In those circumstances, with a specific balloting procedure set in train, I do not think that it falls into the category the right hon. Gentleman has described.
I should add that I set out the position in respect of the same question in the same Session on 18 March, and that on 25 March—that is to say, on Monday this week—in response to a question on her statement from the right hon. Member for New Forest East, the Prime Minister signalled that she was well aware of the strictures that I had issued and that if the Government attempted to bring back their deal, they would ensure that my requirements were met. So it was obviously in the Prime Minister’s mind that there was a test that needed to be met, and I reiterated earlier this afternoon that test of change. I do not honestly think that it can usefully be argued further tonight, but no doubt there will be discussions in the days to come and we shall have to see what emerges. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman, at least in part. He is not easily satisfied,  but I hope that it has at least in part satisfied him for tonight—[Interruption.] Ah! The Attorney General says, “It ought to!” Who am I to disagree on this matter with so learned and cerebral an authority in the House as the Attorney General?

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note from the results of round one of the indicative votes process that the Father of the House’s motion on a customs union failed by a majority of eight and the motion to hold a confirmatory ballot failed by 27, and yet the shadow Brexit Secretary argued that the Government’s motion, which failed by 230 at its first attempt and by 149 at its second attempt, should somehow take precedence—[Interruption.] I meant to say the Brexit Secretary; I was just future gazing. Does that not strike you as a rather odd interpretation of the results so far, Mr Speaker?

John Bercow: Well, interpretations vary, which I think is clear from the points of order. The hon. Lady has made her point with some force, and I am sure that people will study it in the Official Report together with the observations of other right hon. and hon. Members.

Vincent Cable: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point about how to reconcile this evening’s votes with your ruling earlier today, I note that two motions received votes significantly in excess of what the Government have achieved with their meaningful votes. Would it therefore not be appropriate for the Government to bring back their withdrawal agreement, amended to take account of the Leader of the House’s changes and modified to allow for a confirmatory vote? In that way, we may at last reach some consensus.

John Bercow: A variety of options is there for policymakers, parliamentarians and members of the Executive, and the right hon. Gentleman has helpfully indicated what he thinks should be the priorities in the important days that lie ahead.

Vicky Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Monday, when you made it clear that no identical vote should be put to the House twice, you were also helpful in clarifying a point of order from myself that, in deciding whether a vote was identical, you would take into consideration the conditions and circumstances in which Members were having to make a decision. Since the last meaningful vote, there have been many other votes, including a number today, and many of my colleagues have indicated both privately and publicly that the conditions and circumstances therefore mean that they wish to change their mind—not least my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who is getting married on Saturday and has just told colleagues that she would like to support another vote on the withdrawal agreement. Given that time is pressing and that a decision must be made before Cinderella appears on Friday night, please can we reconsider the conditions and circumstances around a meaningful vote?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. Some people may have changed their mind, but others have not done so, and the situation is as I have just described. I recognise the premium that  the hon. Lady attaches to the matter, but I do not have anything to add to or subtract from what I have already said, for the simple reason that I think it has the advantage of being true and of continuing validity.

Kirsty Blackman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the programme motion that says that we will be discussing these matters again on Monday and your earlier comments about the Prime Minister’s deal and the possibility of bringing it back, have you received any intelligence about whether the House will be sitting on Friday and, if it is, what it will be discussing?

John Bercow: The answer to that is that at this stage I do not know. As the hon. Lady will understand, that matter is not first and foremost in my hands. It may be that colleagues will discover more tomorrow if they attend business questions. After all—I say this again for the purposes of the intelligibility of our proceedings—that is the weekly occasion on which we learn from the Leader of the House the intended business for the next parliamentary week. I have a strong sense that colleagues will be in their places to listen to what the Leader of the House has to say and, possibly, to put questions to her. Enlightenment will come not necessarily tonight, but in all likelihood tomorrow, on that occasion or later in the day.

Kevin Foster: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I always listen with great interest to your rulings on procedure, and I listened with quite some interest to your ruling earlier today. I would be grateful for your view on page 332 of “Erskine May,” which says:
“Standing Order No 27 allowing the Government to arrange its business in any order it thinks fit… This far-reaching control can be further extended by the Government, if the need arises, by inviting the House to agree to a motion suspending the relevant standing orders”
Could you clarify whether my interpretation, which would give an ability to move a motion on a Standing Order so as to secure another vote or to rearrange business, is correct?

John Bercow: I am well familiar with “Erskine May.” The House’s ownership of its Standing Orders is a matter of established fact, which has been of long-standing significance. As to what happens in the period to come, we shall have to see. I am extraordinarily obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not mean it in any spirit of discourtesy, but he has not told me something that I did not know. I am deeply grateful to him, and I feel sure he is pleased that he has made his point.

Kate Hoey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today we voted on a business motion for the proceedings today and on Monday. An amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) would have allowed us to vote on removing paragraph (2) so that we do not vote on Monday. This special arrangement was originally going to be for one day. I understand that you decided not to select the amendment but, given the problems we now have, would it not be sensible to vote again tomorrow on whether we actually want to continue with this on Monday?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is an innovative thought on her part. She says the position was originally going to be for one day, and I do not mean this in any spirit of unkindness or discourtesy, but the answer is no. The original form of the motion specified two days, not one day, and it specified what its mover wanted, rather than what the hon. Lady might have wanted. There was that alternative proposition, and my view was that the House would be keen to get on with the substantive debate on a vast miscellany of different motions and that the House should be invited to decide the business of the House motion. The House decided the business of the House motion, and the business of the House motion specified two days. I absolutely understand that that does not please her, but that is the factual answer to the perfectly reasonable question she put to me.

Bob Blackman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly the decisions taken tonight were to defeat all the motions you selected but, of course, there were eight other proposals that you chose not to put to the vote—that is absolutely your right—and on which the House has not had a chance to reach a decision. Many of those proposals were signed by a number of Members on a cross-party basis. Personally, I do not agree with most of them. However, we have not tested the House’s view on them. What is your intention on those motions that were not chosen for debate? Can they now be considered on Monday to test the House’s opinion?

John Bercow: My understanding of the intention of the architect of the process is that it was intended, ideally, to reach a conclusion in one day, but more likely to result in a shortlisting. Therefore on the second day, with a narrower field of relatively popular, if not sufficiently popular, propositions, it would be possible to reach a conclusion between those remaining high contenders.
Off the top of my head, I would not automatically have thought it was the wish of the architects of the procedure, or the most obviously sensible course, to test those propositions that were not selected in the first place. I am happy to consider the point, but I would not have thought so.
I know the hon. Gentleman is not criticising, and he asked his question in an extremely reasonable way, as he always does, but in so far as Members or others might ask, “What motions were not selected and why?” the answer is that I was making a judgment about the breadth of the issues, the numbers and range of support, and where there was duplication, as he will attest there was, I tended not to choose two propositions on the same subject but rather to arbitrate between competing claims. It would not seem to be obviously sensible simply to opt for the other of the two competing claims. I would have thought it is more sensible, if we have that second day as the House has voted to do, to seek to make further progress from those propositions that were tested today. That would be my instinct, but I am always open to representations from colleagues.

Bob Blackman: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I particularly referred to the so-called “Malthouse compromise”, which has signatures from at least three different parties. You did not select it for debate, so this procedure has not had the chance to test  the House’s opinion on it. Why could it not be brought back as a specific issue, given the range of support there is across political parties for it?

John Bercow: I am happy to consider the point. As I say, I thought that I had chosen a range of propositions that reflected the key issues in the debate and the key preferences for outturn. I am speaking off the top of my head, as colleagues can see. I had some regard also to a consideration that has always been adjudged to be important, by Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of the Brexit argument: the likely capacity to deliver an outcome. That was a factor in my mind, especially in view of pressure of time and the need to work with other partners.

Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates back to the earlier point of order made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He said that the “temporary Prime Minister” should resign. Given the two huge defeats for the Prime Minister, have you had any intimation that, following her discussions with her parliamentary colleagues this afternoon, she will be coming before the House in the next few days to announce her resignation?

John Bercow: I have certainly received no such indication at all. The Prime Minister was here today. To be fair, she has been a most assiduous attender in the Chamber, in making statements to the House and responding to questions, often for very appreciable periods of time. Obviously, she will be here next week for Prime Minister’s questions, and we fully anticipate and look forward to that. I have received no such notification. I am aware of media reports, but I would not have been present at any meetings that took place earlier this afternoon, for obvious reasons. The hon. Gentleman has made his own points in his own way, with his customary style and puckish grin.

Nigel Huddleston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have commented previously that your determinations—your rulings in this place—depend on precedents, context and circumstances. Many of us believe that the context of a meaningful vote 3 has changed in the light of the votes this evening. Could you provide some guidance as to what would constitute context and circumstances changing in your mind, so that we can be assured as to whether or not a meaningful vote 3 is possible?

John Bercow: I think the hon. Gentleman can readily extrapolate from things that I have said before on this matter. I made a clear statement on 18 March, and I responded to a miscellany of questions on that occasion, possibly including an inquiry from him—I do not recall for certain but there might have been such. On that occasion, I indicated that it seemed to me that there was a matter not just of precise wording but of thrust: what was the essential thrust of the proposition that was being put, and had it changed or had it not. I invoked evidence, in support of the propriety of the second vote on 12 March, of the publication of documents consequent upon discussions that took place with the European Union. Those were examples it seemed to me of facts, of evidence and of circumstances that were relevant.  I note the opinion of the hon. Gentleman that the situation has in some way now changed. He is perfectly entitled to that opinion. One has to look at the specifics. If people come with specifics, the specifics are considered. As a wise and discerning fellow, who is unfailingly fair-minded, I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the wisdom of such an approach.

Sarah Wollaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is both a national tragedy and a national embarrassment. Is this situation not partly down to the fact that we tried to reduce a complex issue with very many possible versions of Brexit into a simple, binary choice? Does this evening not demonstrate that we must now set out clearly what the choice is and return it to the British people? Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the greatest number of votes cast today were for a confirmatory public vote on a defined choice?

John Bercow: The factual record speaks for itself. The political point that the hon. Lady perfectly reasonably makes—it is not a party political point, of course—is not one for me, but she has made her point with her typical sincerity and sense of insistence on what she believes to be right, and I respect that. How these proceedings—in all the time I have known the hon. Lady, she has been concerned about this—are viewed by people outwith this place, I do not know. However, it seems to me, if I may say so, that it is a matter not just of the content of what is said but of how it is said that is of the foremost importance. In my experience, the hon. Lady plays the ball rather than the man or woman. If we can, albeit amid inflamed passions and strong conflicts of opinion, maintain that basic respect for each other and that civility of discourse, that has to be in our interests, both in respect of this issue and reputationally for the future.

Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the points of order made by my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), I am not seeking to challenge what you are saying, Sir, but may I ask you what scope exists? We are clearly in uncharted waters and difficult times for both Parliament and the country. Does the scope exist for you to consider overnight, perhaps taking advice from Clerks or others, and reflect on the criteria for the material changes to which you alluded in your statement earlier in the Session with regard to the Government’s being able to bring back a meaningful vote 3? If you could reflect on the criteria that would allow it to happen and realise that, as you have rightly said, this Parliament cannot be hog-tied just by precedent—we are an organic democracy and Parliament—I think that, given the circumstances raised by both of my hon. Friends and others, that could be done, and it might be wise to be done to facilitate still further this ongoing debate, further to Monday.

John Bercow: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Colleagues talk to each other and I talk to senior Members of the House—representatives of the Government, Law Officers and others—from time to time. I do not say it at all unkindly but I do not feel that the hon. Gentleman has put to me anything that has added to what has already been said; he has to some  extent attempted to reinforce the views that have been expressed by other colleagues and with which he may himself sympathise. In so far as he feels he has made his point—and he has made his point—I am greatly obliged to him.

Simon Hoare: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—

John Bercow: No, no, there is no further to it. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, I have responded to it, and that is that.

Wera Hobhouse: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that no single option has so far found a majority in this House, would it not be sensible to suggest to those who can do a bit of math, and in the spirit of compromise, that we put together two options that are not mutually exclusive? For example, we could put together a people’s vote with the deal suggested by the Prime Minister, because in that way a combined option might actually make it over the line.

John Bercow: I hear what the hon. Lady said, but I do not think it is for me to adjudicate. Colleagues talk to each other, all sorts of propositions are advanced, and they sometimes reflect compromises between people who are of a very different mind and sometimes between people of a similar mind but a different tactic. Anything is possible. It is a good question but, if the hon. Lady will forgive me—I do not mean this critically—it is inevitably an abstract question, in that it does not attend to one particular circumstance, so it is not something on which I can give a verdict. But is it possible for colleagues to communicate with each other about these things in the period ahead, both in the short term and in the medium term? Of course it is possible, and I feel sure that people will do so.

Gareth Snell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about the selection of amendments today—I have the sincerest deference to your decisions and do not seek to challenge them—the motion laid by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on Monday did not specifically refer to the Order Paper of the following Monday being taken up for more indicative votes. Would it be in order if, on Monday, a third day was sought for indicative votes, given that that was not specified in the original motion? Would it therefore be possible to consider amendments to that motion on Monday, so that we do not end up with further days to repeat this process being claimed every day, with our ending up no further forward in this exercise?

John Bercow: It would be perfectly possible for an amendment to any business of the House motion on Monday to be put to me for consideration. In other words, if the hon. Gentleman is asking, for the sake of simplicity, if he could have another go, it would be perfectly open to him to have another go. I am not going to give him any advance promise or indication of likely judgment, but it is perfectly possible for that matter to be considered in the round. He may want to take his chances if that scenario plays out.

Community and Sub-Post Offices

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jeremy Quin.)

Gavin Newlands: It now feels like we are actually in a Friday sitting, as we have been here such a long time already. I rise to raise growing concerns that have been brought to my attention by the National Federation of SubPostmasters and by many sub-postmasters in my constituency. I know that colleagues from across the House will have heard similar calls themselves. Several colleagues have already indicated a desire to intervene, which I am keen to accommodate; all I ask is for brevity when they do so.
The simple and undeniable fact is that many post offices face increasing challenges and huge uncertainty with regard to their long-term financial viability. In the modern digital world, with the likes of Amazon, grocery delivery and online banking, many of our small village and town centres, particularly in rural areas, face systemic degradation and challenges unlike anything they have seen before. This is at a time when big banks continue to up sticks and close their local branches at short notice, often with little consultation with their supposedly valued customers and local representatives. The role of the Post Office as the community banker is therefore becoming increasingly pronounced.

Jim Shannon: I am here to support the hon. Gentleman, because this issue is very important to me and my constituency. Does he agree that, in rural communities, post offices are the hub of country life? They are more than a link to essential services; they further social interaction. It is so important that elderly people in rural communities can have contact with post offices. For many people, the post office is their life.

Gavin Newlands: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will go into detail on some of that. After the shenanigans of the last hour, I feel that his intervening in the Adjournment debate has restored balance to the force.
The post office is a community institution in Scotland, and, as we have heard, the rest of the UK. Over the years, famous firms like Woolies, BHS and Blockbuster, in addition to countless small family retailers in our towns and villages, have closed their doors for good, but the post office continues to be a fixture of our local communities.
Under successive Governments, we have faced decades of aggressive privatisation of nationalised industries that many, particularly in older generations, felt immense pride in contributing to. The Post Office looks very different today from 25, 50, or even 100 years ago, yet it requires still further modernisation. However, to paraphrase a former Tory Prime Minister, it remains one of the only pieces of family silver that has not been flogged for a fraction of its market value for the sake of ideological privatisation. Even as its partner, the Royal Mail, has been privatised—cheaply, I might add—Post Office Ltd remains in public hands.
Post office closures disproportionately affect Scotland, with 40 occurring from 2011 until March last year, compared with England’s 297. Per head of population,  those closures are happening at a rate that is one third faster in Scotland than south of the border. Add to that mix Scotland’s geography and size—including 94 inhabited islands—compared with England, and it becomes clear that the continuing viability of the post office is of extreme importance to Scotland, particularly in the light of the number of bank branches being slashed.

Stephen Gethins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gavin Newlands: My hon. Friend had not indicated his desire to intervene, but I will give way if he is brief.

Stephen Gethins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, as his commitment to local businesses in his area is very strong. Bank closures have had such an impact on small towns in rural areas like my own. Will he ask the Minister about the charges, given that post offices are increasingly taking the burden of those bank closures in rural areas?

Gavin Newlands: Absolutely. I will go into more detail on that subject in my speech and I will press the Minister on the issue.
The important role that the post office plays in our lives is felt more sharply in small towns and rural communities, which are disproportionately dependent on designated community post offices and sub-postmasters. In this debate, I will emphasise the challenges that the latter face due to unfair deals with big banks for providing basic banking services. Despite the growth of online and phone banking, there is still—and, for the foreseeable future, will remain—an undeniable need for easily accessible face-to-face banking, which is of particular importance to the elderly and those with additional support needs. As banks flee the high street, post offices are fulfilling this vital role.

Neil Gray: I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way in which he is setting out his case, which is very strong. He mentioned the problem of closures in communities across Scotland. We are very fortunate in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts, because we have managed to secure a new post office in Plains that has since been very well supported. Does he agree that that support should send a strong message to the Government to open new post offices, not to close them?

Gavin Newlands: I do not need to add to my hon. Friend’s contribution; the Minister has heard him.

Philippa Whitford: Is it not bizarre that the Department for Work and Pensions has pushed people to open bank accounts away from the post office in order to receive benefits, when they actually end up back at the post office? Maybe we should make post offices more secure to provide access to cash.

Gavin Newlands: I agree 100% with my hon. Friend that the entire exercise is, quite frankly, a piece of nonsense; she makes her point well.
The fees that banks pay to Post Office Ltd, which in turn compensates its sub-postmasters, to carry out this work have been ridiculously low––so much so that the majority of these transactions are actually carried out at a loss to the sub-post office. For example, for every £1,000 of cash accepted over the counter, Post Office Ltd is paid 24p. There is no differential between the commissions paid for coins and for notes, so in effect if the post office had to count 100,000 pennies, they would get to keep 24 of them as payment. To be clear, Post Office Ltd also pays a transaction fee, but the combined fees are insufficient to cover those costs. It is clear that the current deal is deeply unfair and unsustainable.

Ruth Cadbury: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to the House. Of course, there are issues in rural areas in Scotland, but we also have an issue in Brentford town centre—a small town centre in the suburbs of London. We have lost our sub-post office, which closed in the new year because the sub-postmaster did not want to keep it on. No one else could be found among any of the other businesses to run the sub-post office because, as he has just outlined, it is just not viable. Does he agree that the Government need to review their tapering down of the network subsidy payment, which was supposed to be what made sub-post offices viable? In Brentford’s case, it is clearly no longer viable.

Gavin Newlands: I totally agree. It is simply not viable to be a sub-postmaster at the moment.

Patricia Gibson: My hon. Friend made an excellent point about the fact that our post offices are being expected to pick up the slack because the banks have abandoned our high streets. Does he agree that this is putting postmasters in crisis, because the remuneration is so poor that, on average, many earn below the minimum wage?

Gavin Newlands: It is as if my hon. Friend, who is sitting next to me, had read my speech, because I am about to come to that.

Alan Brown: There is a fantastic post office in the village of Dunlop in my constituency where people do great work. It has a fine range of whiskies and beers, by the way, so it is well worth a visit. They have the same issue. The sub-postmaster has worked out that on the hours he does, he gets paid less than the minimum wage, yet he hires staff and correctly pays them the money they are due. Is this not an injustice?

Gavin Newlands: It absolutely is. That sub-postmaster will have even less money once he has paid the commission to my hon. Friend for the advert he has just given.
At this point, it is worth giving some background and context regarding sub-postmasters’ remuneration. Previously, all post offices received a fixed element of pay—a core payment—that also allowed for six weeks’ annual leave. Now, only a small number of offices—about 400—that did not go through the network transformation, plus offices designated as community offices, continue to receive a fixed element of pay. Overall, the total amount paid to sub-postmasters has dropped as a result of the removal of this fixed element of pay from the  majority of offices. The total amount paid by Post Office Ltd across the whole network in 2017-18 was 17% lower than in 2013-14, and that is before adjusting for inflation. As a result of the transformation programme, new post office models—main, local, and local-plus offices—are paid on commission only for the transactions they carry out. Main-model offices receive commission rates that are roughly one third higher than local-model offices.
It is with this backdrop that the Post Office is currently engaged in renegotiating the deeply unfair banking contracts with UK Finance, the body that represents the banks. Given that the Government have hidden behind the post office network countless times at the Dispatch Box while defending bank branch closures since 2015, and that, on behalf of the public, they own the Post Office, I hope that they will act as the proper stewards of the Post Office they should be and ensure that the deal ends up being a fair and sustainable one.

Patrick Grady: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, because the point he is making is absolutely correct. More and more people are becoming dependent on post offices precisely because of the bank closures. The whole of Maryhill Road in my constituency, which I know he is familiar with, is going to be left without a single bank due to closures of all kinds of branches, and that is just since we were all elected in 2015. It is absolutely vital that the post offices on that street—a very long street—are supported to continue to maintain support for the people who need face-to-face banking services.

Gavin Newlands: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I know Maryhill Road well as I used to work there for many years. It is in the heart of Craiglang, where my wife is from.

Hugh Gaffney: Does the hon. Gentleman know that not just the banks are shutting post offices but the Government? The Post Office is shutting down Crown post offices, and 73 post offices in Scotland have been put into  W.H. Smith—the worst retailer in the country. This is happening because of the Government. The Scottish Government are different—they are opening up post offices.

Gavin Newlands: I totally agree. The post office network, with the Crown issue and this issue, is being dismantled before our eyes unless the Government get to grips with this.

Bill Grant: rose—

Gavin Newlands: I am conscious of the time, and the Minister may be a little bit shorter of response time than she would perhaps like to be, but I will give way.

Bill Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the income of the small businesses run by many sub-postmasters and postmasters has been driven down by the Post Office and has reduced dramatically, and they are therefore unable to sell on what is maybe a long-established business that nobody will take on? This is leading to the closure of important post offices in communities. The Post Office itself is reducing their number and causing this crisis.

Gavin Newlands: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will come on to detail some of that shortly, if I get a minute between interventions.
The recent survey by the National Federation of SubPostmasters makes for stark reading both for Post Office Ltd and the Government. It found that 77% of sub-postmasters believe that their remuneration rates for business banking are unfair, while only 9% thought them fair, and 67% thought the rates for personal banking were unfair. If that is felt in such huge numbers, I am confident that there is a serious problem emerging that must be addressed quickly. If the number of banking transactions were to continue to increase, 76% of sub-postmasters would be concerned that the level of profit from these transactions would be inappropriate, but 50% of them also had concerns about the volume of cash they had to hand, and a further 42% were concerned about the impact on customer queuing time.
I have visited post offices in my constituency, and unfortunately a picture has emerged that matches the one painted by the federation. When I spoke with those at Ferguslie Park post office, they agreed that the fees they received were not adequate, especially for the amount of transactions that they carry out. That post office plays an important role in administering and advising on benefit payments and has had little success in making sales on the likes of life insurance, savings accounts, mortgages and home insurance. It is therefore especially important that the post office has a secure financial future.
The federation is also concerned about post office closure rates. In July 2018, nearly 1,000 post offices in the sub-postmaster network were listed as temporarily closed—8% of the entire network.

Martin Docherty: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. In Hardgate in my constituency, the Post Office has been unable to replace the closed post office, which serves Hardgate, Duntocher and Faifley. Does he agree that it is up to the Government to force the Post Office to re-establish Crown post offices, where the Post Office cannot meet that need?

Gavin Newlands: I totally agree. The first thing that has to be done, though, is to increase the rates that make post offices viable in the modern age. I hope the Minister will take that step.
In 2018, sub-postmasters were far more likely to state their intention to close in the coming year than small businesses in general, with 22% intending to close or downsize their operation. Those with such plans overwhelmingly came from deprived areas. Sub-postmasters also face increasingly difficult working conditions, with often 40-plus hours being dedicated just to the post office side of their business and 27% of them working longer hours in 2018 than 2017. They average fewer than 10 days’ holiday each year, and one third took no time off whatsoever. They also face less take-home pay, with 61% taking home less in 2018 than 2017, 76% making less than the national minimum wage for hours worked and 19% of them or their partners taking on extra work to supplement their income.
Since network transformation, many post offices designated as local post offices, such as Kirklandneuk in my constituency, have had some services removed,  such as Parcelforce services and passport services, which may otherwise cross-subsidise the lack of remuneration for banking services. Clearly that would be less of an issue were they simply paid a fair rate from the banks.

Douglas Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Newlands: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman promises to be brief, and I congratulate him on the birth of his child.

Douglas Ross: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I have done my bit for the Post Office recently, with the number of cards I have been receiving since the birth of my child—although perhaps 35 cards did not have a stamp put on them, because I have not had any from SNP Members so far, but I have had many congratulations, which I am grateful for.
I have raised this issue a number of times. We are fortunate that the director for Scotland for the National Federation of SubPostmasters, Paul McBain, owns post offices in Moray. An issue that comes up time and again is that the public are not aware of the wide range of services that are available in post offices. They know what was historically available, but much more is now available, and we need to promote that message, to encourage more of our constituents to use post offices rather than online services.

Gavin Newlands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is certainly the case, and the survey bears that out; that is the belief of sub-postmasters. But at the end of the day, more customers going into a post office to use the services will just swamp it and perhaps make it an even bigger loss-making venture than it currently is. We need to sort the rates out as well.
Bridge of Weir post office, which I have raised in this place in the past, has serious concerns about its long-term financial viability. After making a small loss last year, it anticipates that the losses will continue to rise. All told, if this continues, it expects its accumulative losses over 10 years to reach £70,000, despite the centre being run almost entirely by volunteers, with just one paid member of staff in the post office.
When I previously raised the Bridge community centre post office, in asking the Leader of the House for a debate on this issue, I pointed out that despite being the textbook definition of a community institution—run by the community for the community, because no retailer would take up the franchise—it receives no community subsidy from the UK Government, and this is regrettable. Owing to the Government’s rules on distance to other retailers and to other post offices, it does not qualify for any support, but with a dose of common sense, this would be entirely avoidable.
Let us remember that no other Bridge of Weir retailer wanted to take this on. In addition, the Bridge’s other retail offerings—tea and coffee, cards, second-hand books—do not operate in competition with any other Bridge of Weir retailer. There is another post office within the three-mile limit, which also rules out community status. However, the community designation ignores local public transport links, which Bridge of Weir had gei few to start with, and recent cuts have eviscerated  the village’s bus service. In addition, the next closest post office is a 10-minute walk from the nearest bus stop, meaning that access, even with an adequate bus service, is a huge issue.
This all said, I understand the need for community status criteria to be in place, but it is clear to me that we need to look again at these criteria, or to allow for common sense exceptions in places such as Bridge of Weir. The community subsidy is still vital as it supports many branches that might not otherwise be commercially viable. Under current plans, the Government subsidy to the post office is due to be cut in the coming year and to end entirely in 2021, but I would strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this.
The National Federation of SubPostmasters’ latest study found that, last July, 17% of community model branches were actually closed. This is alarming as they are potentially the very last store in a local area. The community subsidy is therefore letting many post offices fall through the net at the current rate, let alone with a further reduction or indeed its removal. This is not a promising outlook for the future of the post office network.
In too many of our small and rural towns, the local post office is often the last place where a face-to-face, human service is available. With such a wide array of duties—handling mail, banking, benefit administration and so on—it is understandable why the post office has continued to be such a vital lifeline to so many of our communities. I therefore urge this Government to listen to sub-postmasters to see what more they can do to support them in the short, medium and long term. They should not be afraid to stand behind the Post Office—let us not forget that we own it—and use their influence to ensure that it gets a fair and equitable deal with the banks that now rely on post offices to provide their services.
I urge the Minister to rethink the Government’s community designation to take into account local geography and factors such as public transport links in our communities. After speaking to my constituents, and I am sure that others in this place will have found the same, the current community designation leaves many community post offices—in practice, if not designation—out to dry. Indeed, the Minister must ensure that the community subsidy does not end in 2021. If indeed it were to end, I dread to think of the number of towns and villages left without a bank or a post office at all.
Given that the vast majority of the post office network is made up of sub-postmasters, we should be concerned when they tell us that they are overworked and underpaid, and most of all when they tell us that their financial futures are perilous. I hope the Minister will commit to meeting me to discuss this further.
The local post office has a revered position in our public life, standing through centuries of change, turmoil and political drama. It is important to note that times have changed, and the modern digital age has not been to the advantage of the post office. I only hope that we can maintain and protect a sustainable post office network for all our communities. The Government have a pivotal role in securing this vision, and I urge the Minister to listen to and to heed all the points raised by many Members in this short debate to ensure a secure future for our post offices.

Kelly Tolhurst: I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) on securing today’s important debate on community and sub-post offices. I am sorry that I do not have much time, but I will try to respond to some of the issues that have been raised. I am aware of his close interest in this subject, as we exchanged correspondence on this very issue last October. For centuries, post offices have been the centre of social life in our communities, towns and villages across the UK. This is why, in our 2017 manifesto, we committed to safeguarding the post office network and supporting community and sub-post offices, recognising the key role that post offices play in their communities.
At this juncture, it is worth setting out the overall context within which the Post Office operates. Although the Post Office is publicly owned, it is a commercial business operating in competitive markets. The Government set the strategic direction for the Post Office—to maintain a national network accessible to all and to do so more sustainably for the taxpayer—and allow the company the commercial freedom to deliver that strategy as an independent business.
Between 2010 and 2018, we provided nearly £2 billion to maintain and invest in a national network of at least 11,500 post offices. That extensive network gives the Post Office a unique reach among service providers. The Post Office currently meets and exceeds all Government accessibility targets at a national level.
The Post Office’s financial performance has improved significantly. Consequently, Government funding required to sustain the network has drastically decreased and is set to decrease even further in future years.

Philippa Whitford: Will the Minister give way?

Kelly Tolhurst: I will not give way—I have only six minutes left.
Government investment has also enabled the modernisation of over 7,500 branches, added more than 200,000 opening hours a week and established the Post Office as the largest network trading on Sunday.
I encourage hon. Members to look objectively at those facts. They clearly show that the network is at its most stable in decades. Maintaining a stable network of community-status branches is at the heart of the Post Office’s social purpose. They are effectively the last shop in the village.
Almost half the 6,000 rural post offices have community status, including some of the post offices in the constituency of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. In those areas, post offices are regarded as part of the fabric of community life. For example, a report by Citizens Advice on the use of the rural post office network found that seven out of 10 consumers bought essential items at a post office and almost 3 million shoppers visited a post office on a weekly basis.
The Post Office recognises the unique challenge of running a community branch and supports the postmasters who run them differently from the rest of the network. Those postmasters receive fixed remuneration, as well as variable remuneration, to reflect their special circumstances.
In addition, the Post Office delivered almost £10 million of investment via the community fund between 2014 and 2018. That enabled community branches to invest in their associated retail businesses. The Post Office has now launched a smaller community branch development scheme that will benefit an anticipated 700 branches. Let me be clear: the Government and the Post Office will continue to support rural post offices.
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that, as part of the Post Office network transformation programme, 10 of the 14 branches in his constituency have been modernised. Modernisation makes Post Office branches simpler to run for retailers and improves services for customers through new modern environments and longer opening hours. Modernisation has led to 200 additional opening hours a week in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Five branches are also open on Sundays, delivering greater convenience to consumers.
Looking more widely at the Post Office network in Scotland, there are around 1,400 Post Offices, 66% of which are delivering these important services to communities in rural locations. Scottish branches account for around 11% of branches that have been modernised, creating an additional 24,000 opening hours a week as a result of the network transformation programme. There are around 470 post office services in Scotland that have community status, and around £800,000 has been provided to those branches from the Post Office community fund.
When a branch closes unexpectedly, the Post Office works hard to maintain or restore rural services in Scotland. For example, Post Office services have been restored at Eyemouth, a rural branch in the Scottish borders, which reopened in February after temporary closing last October and is now providing 122 hours of service per week. Muir of Ord post office, which has been closed since December 2016, is set to reopen next month, and that branch will offer double the service hours previously provided.
Hon. Members have raised concerns about the rates of remuneration paid to postmasters, especially for banking services. Although the contractual relationship between Post Office Ltd and postmasters is an operational matter, I care deeply about the issue and I am determined to make sure that running a post office remains an attractive business proposition.
The Post Office has invested significantly in its branch network to enable its branches to operate more effectively in the retail environment. However, the Post Office recognises that there are some locations where that approach is not viable. In those locations, fixed remuneration remains. The Post Office is not complacent and periodically reviews the rate of return on all services for postmasters to reflect the time and effort involved. Post Office Ltd will also use, where possible, the renewals of commercial contracts as opportunities to negotiate improved rates that can be shared with postmasters.
I want to touch on the issue of Crown franchising, in particular the assumption that franchising means closing and downgrading services. Those criticisms are misplaced. Post office branches are not closing; they are being franchised to other sites. In fact, 98% of post offices across the UK are successfully operated by independent businesses and retail partners.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that all post offices across the network are of the utmost importance to  this Government and to me as the Minister. We recognise their value and importance to the community, residents, businesses and tourists in both rural and urban parts of the UK. We will continue to honour our manifesto commitment so that the post office can thrive and remain at the heart of our rural and urban communities.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. [Interruption.] I cannot hear him, sadly, because I have a cold, but I am always happy to talk about post offices at any time and happily welcome further debates.
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

EU: WITHDRAWAL AND FUTURE  RELATIONSHIP VOTES

Motion (B)—No Deal

That this House agrees that the UK shall leave the EU on 12 April 2019 without a deal.—(Mr Baron.)

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 400.
Question accordingly negatived.

Motion (D)—Common Market 2.0

That this House—(1) directs Her Majesty’s Government to—renegotiate the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 11 March 2019 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’ to provide that, on the conclusion of the Implementation Period and no later than 31 December 2020, the United Kingdom shall—(a) accede to the European Free Trade Association (Efta) having negotiated a derogation from Article 56(3) of the Efta Agreement to allow UK participation in a comprehensive customs arrangement with the European Union,(b) enter the Efta Pillar of the European Economic Area and thereby render operational the United Kingdom’s continuing status as a party to the European Economic Area Agreement and continuing participation in the Single Market,(c) enter a comprehensive customs arrangement including a common external tariff at least until alternative arrangements that maintain frictionless trade with the European Union and no hard border on the island of Ireland have been agreed with the European Union,(d) conclude an agreement with the European Union, which in accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Withdrawal Agreement supersedes the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in full;(e) develop and bring to this House proposals for full and fair enforcement of the rule that EEA migrants must be “genuinely seeking work” and have “sufficient resources not to become a burden on the UK’s social assistance system”, in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006;(2) resolves to make support for the forthcoming European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill conditional upon the inclusion of provisions for a Political Declaration revised in accordance with the provisions of this motion to be the legally binding negotiating mandate for Her Majesty’s Government in the forthcoming negotiation of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.—(Nick Boles.)

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 283.
Question accordingly negatived.

Motion (H)—EFTA and EEA

That this House recognises the democratic duty of Parliament to respect the result of the 2016 referendum whilst securing an orderly departure from the EU that preserves the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; notes that the UK is a signatory to the treaty establishing the European Economic Area and has not given notice to leave the EEA as is required under Article 127 of that agreement; further notes that the UK was a founding member of the European Free Trade Association in 1960 and therefore call on the Government to (a) assert its existing rights as a signatory to the EEA, (b) take necessary steps to make our rights and obligations as an EEA member operable on an emergency basis through the domestic courts, (c) apply to re-join EFTA at the earliest opportunity to make the EEA agreement operable on a sustainable basis and (d) decline to enter a customs union with the EU but seek agreement on new protocols relating to the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade.—(George Eustice.)

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 377.
Question accordingly negatived.

Motion (J)—Customs Union

That this House instructs the Government to; (1) ensure that any Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated with the EU must include, as a minimum, a commitment to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU; (2) enshrine this objective in primary legislation.—(Mr Kenneth Clarke.)

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 272.
Question accordingly negatived.

Motion (K)—Labour’s alternative plan

That this House requires Ministers to; (a) negotiate changes to the draft Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration so as to secure; (i) a permanent customs union with the EU; (ii) close alignment with the single market underpinned by shared institutions and obligations;(iii) dynamic alignment on rights and protections;(iv) commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in areas such as the environment, education, and industrial regulation;(v) agreement on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and vital shared databases; and(b) introduce primary legislation to give statutory status to the objectives set out in paragraph (a).—(Jeremy Corbyn.)

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 307.
Question accordingly negatived.

Motion (L)—Revocation to avoid no deal

If, on the day before the end of the penultimate House of Commons sitting day before exit day, no Act of Parliament has been passed for the purposes of section 13(1)(d) of the Withdrawal Act, Her Majesty’s Government must immediately put a motion to the House asking it to approve ‘No Deal’ and, if the House does not give its approval, Her Majesty’s Government must ensure that the notice given to the European Council under Article 50, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union, is revoked in accordance with United Kingdom and European Union law.—(Joanna Cherry.)

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 293.
Question accordingly negatived.

Motion (M)—Confirmatory public vote

That this House will not allow in this Parliament the implementation and ratification of any withdrawal agreement and any framework for the future relationship unless and until they have been approved by the people of the United Kingdom in a confirmatory public vote.—(Margaret Beckett.)

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 295.
Question accordingly negatived.

Motion (O)—Contingent preferential arrangements

That this House directs that in case the UK is unable to implement a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to agree immediately and preferentially with the EU- (a) a trade agreement and/or joint notification of trade preference covering 100 per cent of goods traded between the UK and EU under which no tariffs or quantitative restrictions will be applied between the parties and full cumulation of rules of origin which shall apply for a period of up to two years after the UK leaves the EU notwithstanding that these arrangements may be superseded or extended by further mutual agreement;   (b) a standstill period of mutual recognition of standards and conformity assessment for up to two years in which the UK will ensure compliance in the UK with the EU legislative acquis as adopted in Retained EU law under the EU Withdrawal Act on the day the UK leaves the EU notwithstanding that these arrangements may be superseded or extended by further mutual agreement;(c) a customs arrangement consisting of advanced trade facilitation measures that enables and makes full and widespread use of simplified and subsidised procedures to perform customs and regulatory declarations and associated control processes away from UK/EU borders; and(d) make provision for the payment of sums to the European Union in amounts equivalent to the UK’s current net annual financial contribution to the EU for up to two years in respect of the above agreements and arrangements.—(Mr Fysh.)

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 422.
Question accordingly negatived.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Education

That the draft Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education (England) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.

The House divided:Ayes 538, Noes 21.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England: Ayes 482, Noes 14.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Animals)

That the draft Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 15.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

That the draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 239.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)

That the draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 February, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 240.
Question accordingly agreed to.